Enabling Cumulative Improvement of Buildings- in-Use by

Aalto University

School of Science

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management

Victoria Dudnikova

Enabling Cumulative Improvement of Buildings-

in-Use by Revealing Their Performance Gaps

Master’s Thesis submitted for examination for the degree of Master of Science in

Technology

Espoo, 14 April 2016

Supervisor: Professor Jan Holmström

AALTO UNIVERSITY ABSTRACT OF THE

SCHOOL OF SCIENCE MASTER’S THESIS

Author: Victoria Dudnikova

Title: Enabling cumulative improvement of buildings-in-use by

revealing their performance gaps

Date: April 14, 2016 Number of pages: viii + 81

Language: English

Department: Department of Industrial Engineering and Management

Professorship: Service Management and Engineering

Supervisor: Prof. Jan Holmström

The thesis presents an innovative approach to development and proposal of

solutions based on their value added to buildings. The approach is inspired by the

ongoing DIGIBUILD project, which promotes the idea to reveal a performance

gap by integrating and continuously comparing the actual and the intended

performances of facilities. Such approach requires a shift towards a performance-

focused business model. Consequently, value-based development of products

and services enables cumulative improvement of a building ecosystem and

enhances sustainability aspects.

The purpose of this thesis is to develop a roadmap of the performance gap

revealing process, that is, to describe tasks, outcome, challenges and

implementation practices. The study discusses such processes as performance

monitoring and modeling, performance evaluation and benchmarking, as well as

concerns critical drivers towards a performance-focused business model

including procurement, value-based sales and performance-based contracting.

Generally, the study is conducted as an exploratory research, namely a design

science approach. The literature and the analysis of three EU projects

(PERFECTION, LinkedDesign, and TOPAs) contribute to the findings of

research. While the literature facilitates the initial understanding on the

performance gap-revealing problem, EU projects present the implementation

cases and enable the evaluation against the DIGIBUILD concepts.

Keywords: Performance monitoring, performance modeling, performance

evaluation, gap revealing, benchmarking, performance-focused business model,

DIGIBUILD, PERFECTION, LinkedDesign, TOPAs

iii

Acknowledgement

I want to thank my supervisor Professor Jan Holmström for an opportunity to write

this thesis under his guidance. I very appreciate his feedback and important

instruction during the study.

Espoo, 14.04.2016

Victoria Dudnikova

iv

Content

Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................. vi

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

Chapter 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Research background and motivation .......................................................................... 1

1.2. Objectives and research questions ............................................................................... 2

1.3. Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................... 3

Chapter 2. Research methodology ...................................................................................... 4

2.1. Design science approach .............................................................................................. 4

2.2. Design proposition……………………………………………………………………4

2.3. Empirical testing……………………………………………………………………...4

Chapter 3. Introduction to performance-based approach .................................................... 6

3.1. Benefits of implementation .......................................................................................... 6

3.2. Regulations……………………………………………………………………………8

3.3. Procurement…………………………………………………………………………10

Chapter 4. Towards cumulative improvement .................................................................. 13

4.1. Current problems…………………………………………………………………….13

4.2. Revealing performance gap ........................................................................................ 13

4.2.1. Performance monitoring.......................................................................................... 14

4.2.2. Performance modeling …………………………………………………………….17

4.2.3. Performance evaluation ........................................................................................... 21

4.2.4. Benchmarking ......................................................................................................... 25

4.3. Changing a business model ........................................................................................ 27

4.3.1. Performance-oriented contracting ........................................................................... 28

4.3.2. Value-based sales .................................................................................................... 29

Chapter 5. Industry best practices ..................................................................................... 32

5.1. DIGIBUILD project.. ................................................................................................. 32

5.2. PERFECTION project ............................................................................................... 33

5.2.1. Project objectives and value .................................................................................... 33

5.2.2. Proposed solution………………………………………………………………….35

5.2.3. Evaluation against the DIGIBUILD approach ........................................................ 39

5.3. LinkedDesign project ................................................................................................. 42

5.3.1. Project objectives and value .................................................................................... 42

v

5.3.2. Proposed solution………………………………………………………………….45

5.3.3. Evaluation against DIGIBUILD approach .............................................................. 49

5.4. ESCO example………………………………………………………………………52

5.4.1. Principles of ESCO………………………………………………………………..52

5.4.2. TOPAs project, objectives and values..................................................................... 55

5.4.3. Evaluation against DIGIBUILD approach .............................................................. 57

Chapter 6. Discussion ....................................................................................................... 60

6.1. Main findings………………………………………………………………………..60

6.1.1. RQ 1. How and why revealing a gap between the potential and the actual

performances will affect the overall improvement of lifecycle of buildings-in-use? ....... 60

6.1.2. RQ 2. What tasks should be performed to reveal the building performance gap? .. 61

6.1.3. RQ 3. Where performance gap identification has been already implemented in

practice?.............................................................................................................................62

6.1.4. RQ 4. What are key factors that make the process of revealing the performance

gaps challenging? .............................................................................................................. 64

6.2. Limitations…………………………………………………………………………..65

Chapter 7. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 67

Bibliography...................................................................................................................... 69

A Performance indicators framework ............................................................................... 80

B Example of indicators weighting ................................................................................... 81

vi

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BIM Building Information Modeling

BMS Building Management System

CAD Computer Aided Design

CIB International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and

Construction

COBie Construction Operations Building Information Exchange

DMPC Distributed Model Predictive Control

EeB Energy-efficient Building

EnPIs Energy Performance Indicators

EPC Energy Performance Contracting

EPG Energy Performance Gap

ESCO Energy Service Company

ESPC Energy Service Provider Company

GDP Gross Domestic Product

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

ICT Information Communication Technology

IEC Indoor Environmental Quality

IFC Industry Foundation Classes

IoT Internet of Things

IPMVP the International Performance Measurement and Verification

Protocol

IRCC Interjurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee

ISO International Organization for Standardization

IT Information Technology

KBE Knowledge Exploitation Bundle

KPI Key Performance Indicator

vii

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCC Life Cycle Cost

LCE Life Cycle Evaluation

PDA Personal Digital Assistant

PLM Product Lifecycle Management

POE Post Occupancy Evaluation

QLM Quantum Lifecycle Management

RFID Radio Frequency Identification

ROI Return on Investments

QIDMS Quality Inspection and Defect Management System

WSN Wireless Sensor Network

viii

List of Figures

3.1. Procurement process ...................................................................................... 10

4.1. Value co-creation process ............................................................................... 30

5.1. Tasks enabling value-based development ....................................................... 33

5.2. KIPI score ....................................................................................................... 38

5.3. Phases of manufacturing machinery and equipment lifecycle ........................ 43

A.1. KIPI framework ............................................................................................. 80

B.1. Indicators weighting ....................................................................................... 81

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1. Research background and motivation

According to the Horizon 2020 Work Programme [28], buildings represent the

largest source of energy demand and account for 40% of overall energy

consumption. In addition, people spend most their lifetime inside buildings, making

buildings quality and condition crucial for their well-being. This enhances the

concern of the public for buildings sustainability. A sustainable building assumes

attaining the required performance by deploying the minimum of resources, such

as materials, finances, or workforce. Therefore, buildings’ sustainability refers to

improving environmental, economic and societal aspects. These three elements

affect directly on the public prosperity and market economic competitiveness, thus

producing the high interest from the governments of many countries. The public

sector is an essential driver towards innovation and deployment of sustainable

solutions. Therefore, the governments encourage this by developing performance-

based regulations.

A performance-based approach is becoming increasingly popular in the modern

society. Comparing with a traditional prescriptive approach, the performance-based

approach gives actors more freedom in selecting means of design, engineering,

construction and maintenance. As a result, product/service providers are motivated

to develop and propose solutions that are more innovative and efficient.

Furthermore, the performance-based approach reduces barriers in the international

trade, which is highly important nowadays, in the circumstances of the increased

globalization [19].

One of the essential aspects of the performance-focused development is creation

and enhancing value for a customer. Hence, defining user needs and following

performance requirements represent critical tasks. To assure value creation, the

achieved performance should be verified benchmarking against the intended one.

This requires continuous monitoring and controlling of the building condition.

Performance indicators help to measure and express the building performance in a

structured way. When information on the monitored performance is obtained, it can

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2

be compared with the potential performance, and the existing gaps can be identified.

These performance gaps should lie on a base of developing new solutions, thus

improving the buildings-in-use environment. Using such approach, customers

attain deeper understanding on buildings potential and value added of the proposed

solutions. Consequently, this amends the efficiency and productivity of building

lifecycle value, and decreases operating and maintenance costs.

Today, various research associations and funds support projects and research

initiatives devoted to improvement of the assets performance. Performance gap

revealing refers to one of the approaches that enable cumulative enhance in

performance quality. DIGIBUILD is a project, which inspires the gap revealing

process investigated throughout this study. In addition, the thesis considers three

related projects, namely PERFECTION, LinkedDesign, and TOPAs. The projects

contribute to the DIGIBUILD research providing insights into the problem from

different perspectives: data capturing, performance assessment, identification of

performance gaps and automatic adjustment of models and parameters.

1.2. Objectives and research questions

This study investigates an innovative approach to developing performance-oriented

products and services, which enables cumulative improvement of the building

environment. The major interest lies on analyzing the process of performance gap

revealing, that is, definition of enabling mechanisms and produced outcomes.

The objective of the thesis is to present a roadmap that describes the process of

revealing a performance gap in details, as well as to provide insights into its benefits

to building lifecycle value. Because performance gap revealing involves multiple

steps, the study aims to define tasks required to perform. Each task is discussed

further in terms of existing practices and methodologies, which are applied in the

considering area. The final objective of the thesis is to investigate other EU projects

that focus on the similar research problem. They constitute the implementation

examples that contribute to the creation of the innovative approach to development

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 3

and proposal of value-based solutions, providing critical information on successful

and problematic aspects.

Therefore, based on the mentioned objectives, the thesis pursues the following

research questions:

RQ 1. How and why revealing a gap between the potential and the actual

performances will affect the overall improvement of lifecycle value of buildings-in

use?

RQ 2. What tasks should be performed to reveal the building performance gap?

RQ 3. Where performance gap identification has been already implemented in

practice?

RQ 4. What are key factors that make the process of revealing the performance gap

challenging?

1.3. Structure of the thesis

The thesis consists of seven chapters. Chapter 2 describes research methodology.

It discusses the rationale and steps required to conduct a design science approach.

Chapter 3 introduces a performance-based approach and defines critical drivers

toward buildings sustainability, that is, regulations and procurement. Chapter 4

holds a deep discussion on tasks required to reveal the performance gap, as well as

defines the context of a performance-focused business model. Chapter 5 describes

the proposed approach for performance gap revealing inspired by a DIGIBUILD

project, and presents previous and existing EU projects, which investigate the

similar problem. Chapter 6 is a ‘Discussion’ part that relates to systematic

answering the research questions by synthesizing results of the theory and the

empirical part, as well as provides research limitations. Finally, Chapter 7 presents

conclusions.

4

Chapter 2. Research methodology

2.1. Design science approach

The investigated research problem is new and has specific practical significance. A

research type that deals with ill-structured and particularly managerial problems

refers to exploratory research. One of the methodological approaches, which

conducts such kind of research, is design science. Design science aims to shape

knowledge on a new phenomenon, thus improving the current practices [25].

2.2. Design proposition

Comparing with explanatory research, which assumes clear problem statement and

reasonable theoretical background, exploratory research should define the initial

problem and the understanding on it as a first step. This requires development of

potential solution design.

Firstly, the current situation is described, and the existing problems that push the

development of a new problem-solving approach are discussed in details.

Thereupon, the intended situation is presented, which means defining why this

supposes to produce the desired outcome and benefits to overcome the existing

problems. Finally, actions and tasks required to move towards the intended situation

are discussed.

A design proposition, or an artifact, represents a general frame that can be applied

in designing a problem-solving solution. The artifact is formulated by means of

realistic evaluation. This focuses on defining and evaluating systematically the

intervention that is supposed to solve the problem in the specific context to achieve

the desired outcome enabling the specific mechanisms [54].

2.3. Empirical testing

When a design proposition is formulated, it should be empirically tested. In the

context of this study, empirical testing assumes comparison of the design

CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 5

proposition (i.e., the concepts of performance gap revealing process) with the

similar propositions developed in several European research projects. This step

facilitates understanding on what works and what does not work in the solution

design. Empirical testing is a refinement phase, which evaluates and consequently

improves the initial design proposition.

6

Chapter 3. Introduction to performance-based

approach

3.1. Benefits of implementation

Today, sustainability is one of the major concerns of the governments around the

world. Building sustainability assumes optimization of the building performance in

all phases, such as design, construction and operation, in terms of minimization of

deployed resources, reduction of environmental impact, and maximization of value

added to the economy. Attaining such optimization goals is crucial for flourishing

not only the building industry itself, but also for the societal prosperity in general.

Buildings sustainability leads to significant improvement of buildings and

environmental performance, as well as decreases operational costs.

However, application of the sustainable approach in building design and

construction requires an interest from both customers (e.g., building owners or

facility managers) and contractors (e.g., designers, engineers or constructors).

Nowadays, customers do not often demand sustainable building solutions, because

such solutions usually refer to employment of innovative technology or

methodology. Thereby, these solutions are not widely experienced, and there is lack

of information on their performance. As a result, this leads to a higher risk of

occurring underestimated costs or incompliance with performance requirements

[32]. Since customers do not trust or could be even not aware of the existing

sustainable building solutions, contractors are not interested in developing and

promoting them.

In order to stimulate demand for sustainable buildings, it is crucial to develop

methods that define clearly sustainable building targets, assess the results of the

proposed solutions, and express explicitly all their benefits to customers.

Furthermore, all costs and risks associated with the proposed solutions should be

accurately calculated, and these estimations should be presented to the customers

to prove being reasonable and complying with a defined customer budget [32].

CHAPTER 3. INTRODUCTION TO PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH 7

Another significant barrier to building sustainability is weak communication and

networking. Maintaining a sustainable building requires close cooperation and

information sharing among all relevant actors across design, construction and

operation phases. For that reason, deployment of ICT tools is essential.

One of the tendencies for building sustainability is a performance-based approach.

The performance-based approach represents a contrast to a traditional prescriptive

approach, which assumes fixed use of materials and methods in building projects,

strictly controlled by contracts.

In comparison, the performance-based approach focuses on setting not the means,

but the results of a project [21]. This implies that a contract between a customer and

a product or service provider defines the outcome performance of a building project.

As such, customers can find an appropriate balance between cost and performance.

The performance-based approach stimulates innovation, which is an essential

aspect of the sustainable building. Innovativeness can relate to processes, materials,

or building components. However, in order to gain significant benefits, innovative

solutions should focus on the overall improvement of the building performance,

which means that enhancing one performance criterion while discouraging others

is not acceptable [65]. To ensure that, it is critical to understand user requirements

and targets, as well as to investigate other factors (e.g., environmental) that can

restrict or affect the attainment of the desired performance goals. Since establishing

user requirements is crucial, this leads to better understanding of a customer and as

a result, higher satisfaction with a project. Furthermore, performance requirements

should be adjusted to a type of a building (e.g., a residential building or an industrial

building), because a purpose of its use and significance to the society or to a

building owner affect the performance criteria and the performance level in general.

The performance-based approach requires establishing new ways of verification of

the building project outcome. The verification aims to confirm that a proposed

solution satisfies the defined performance criteria. The verification can be done in-


house or outsourced, and there are several methods to examine the results of the

developed solution, namely tests, calculations, or a combination of both.

Performance, that should be verified, includes technology-based performance

criteria (i.e., facility performance is measured in terms of its physical parameters),

and risk-oriented performance criteria (i.e., performance is evaluated against the

reliability of the proposed solution to perform as expected) [19].

Overall, the performance-based approach brings significant benefits to customers

and reasonable freedom to solution developers. A prerequisite for applying this

approach is verification that all relevant actors have sufficient capacity, skills and

motivation to innovate and satisfy the established performance criteria. However,

the more performance-oriented building environment is, the more challenging is to

define the universal level of the verified results.

3.2. Regulations

All buildings have to comply with a regulatory system of a specific country as well

as to take into account international standards. Building regulations state goals and

objectives that a building should comply with in order to meet the defined

operational and functional requirements, performance criteria, and the overall

societal needs. The regulations establish requirements and recommendations on

such issues as a building structure, fire safety, heating, lighting, ventilation,

plumbing, indoor air quality or energy, because all of them directly influence on

safety, health and comfort of building users [48].

Although prescriptive (or, solution-based) regulation is easy to follow and verify

their compliance, more governments are shifting their focus on developing a

performance-based regulatory system. Performance-based codes define only the

minimum performance level required to protect buildings’ users from damages and

hazards, but selection of means is a prerogative of contractors. Therefore, there are

much less restrictions on materials and technology and more opportunities for

innovation. However, it is still time-consuming and challenging to approve new


technology by the government, which significantly reduces an interest of engineers

to innovate [65].

Generally, the performance-based codes address such issues as sustainability,

carbon footprint, noise pollution, durability, safety, security and affordability [16,

48]. Moreover, each country should adjust its codes to climatic and demographic

specifics. For example, a current trend in most developed countries is the growth of

ageing population, which raises the importance of regulating the buildings

accessibility.

In order to be successfully implemented, the performance-based code should be

complete, clear and understandable for all stakeholders, and it should avoid any

multiple interpretations by different people. Furthermore, the performance-based

code should present quantified description of performance requirements, taking into

account the risk aspect [19].

The regulatory policies are developing on both national and international (e.g., ISO

and ASTM standards) levels. There are also committees, which encourage

international discussion on issues and challenges of the performance-based

regulations. Examples of such committees are the International Council for

Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB) and the

Interjurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC). Both committees

support research and innovation in the building regulations. As for CIB, it has

developed a set of requirements for performance-based codes (e.g., they should be

easy to understand and apply; be flexible; assure certainty in outcome and

compliance; encourage innovation). At the same time, IRCC develops documents

to improve common understanding on the international regulations, as well as

stimulates open environment for the inter-jurisdictional trade in design and

construction [48].


3.3. Procurement

In the construction industry, procurement constitutes one of the most critical

processes, which affects building sustainability as well as encourages or hinders

innovation. Procurement can vary in different flows: depending on a contract type

(that is, from price-focused to performance-based contracting); or based on risk

allocation (i.e., all risks transferred to one party, or risks shared between a customer

and a service/product seller) [75]. In addition, procurement can be performed in

different procedures. Currently, a customer usually selects a service/product

provider by means of the tendering procedure. Figure 3.1 describes steps of the

procurement process.

Figure 3.1. Procurement process 1

When a building owner realizes the need for some building improvement, it initiates

the procurement process. First, the building owner or a facility operator formulates

initial objectives and requirements of the upcoming project. Next step refers to

selection of a service/product provider. The contractor selection can be performed

as a single step (i.e., selection from all candidates) or as a two-phase process,

namely prequalification and selection of the intended contractor. ‘Prequalification-

selection’ variant is preferable, because it establishes the minimum requirement


level.

In the prequalification step, the customer confirms that the potential contractor has

sufficient capacity, technical capabilities, skills and financial resources to perform

the defined assignment. The customer can verify contractor’s reliability based on

its past performance information. Furthermore, in this stage the contractor should

gather details on a maximum available budget in order to enable development of

the best-fit proposal in terms of quality and money. The intended output of the

prequalification phase is a shortlist of contractors satisfying the established

minimum project requirements. As a result, this reduces time wasted on further

evaluation of inappropriate providers, decreases risks of the project failure, and

generally improves the performance level of the further selection step. Moreover, it

is recommended to conduct prequalification studies per project, to assure that

selected contractors have sufficient capacity. However, such approach is resource

consuming and thus rarely used in practice. For example, public clients apply a

predefined list of contractors that are evaluated annually or even in the longer term

[6, 75].

Thereupon, the potential contractors send their proposals to the customer. The

customer conducts interviews and proposals weighting regarding risks, benefits and

costs in order to identify the best proposal. When the intended contractor is

eventually selected, it should clarify such issues as the scope of the project, its

delivery schedule, and risks management. If all requirements are satisfied, the

customer and the service/product supplier sign a contract [75].

Problems with the project outcome usually occur because of selection of an

inappropriate contractor. This could be caused by setting improperly either

selection criteria or methods, or their incorrect weighting. Generally, cost, time and

quality form the main criteria in the selection process. However, other

characteristics like contractor’s qualification and project features are also critical.

Nowadays, the most important criterion for the contractor selection remains price,


that is, sticking to the prescriptive approach. Consequently, quality of the building

environment decreases, and risks of not complying with the defined project budget

and time increase. However, an efficient and effective supply chain assumes

minimization of any uncertainties and risks. For that reason, moving towards

performance-based procurement is essential.

Performance-based procurement assumes making a trade-off between the price and

the performance, which means that such critical issues as contractor’s skills,

experience and previous history of the projects performance should be taken into

account. Furthermore, this approach aims to assure that both parties target at

achieving mutual interests. This can be done by performance-based contracting, or

sharing risks and responsibilities. Finally, the performance-based approach

encourages reduction of control and management from a customer giving a solution

provider more freedom [75].

13

Chapter 4. Towards cumulative improvement

4.1. Current problems

In addition to challenges defined in the previous chapter, like low demand for

sustainable development and price as a main criterion for contractor selection, there

are several other problems in the current building environment, which prevent

buildings operating on their best level. Firstly, developed solutions do not often

comply with the existing buildings. While the buildings are old, the proposed

solutions are modern. As a result, the emerging innovative solutions are rarely

implemented in practice.

Moreover, both service/product providers and building owners do not understand

clearly where to deploy new solutions in order to produce the best value added to

the buildings. This results in a situation, where service/product providers and

designers do not know how and where to apply their development efforts to improve

significantly the buildings performance. At the same time, building owners do not

purchase the best available solutions on the market that can resolve specific

problems of the buildings performance, which cumulatively exacerbates the

buildings performance and the building ecosystem in general.

4.2. Revealing a performance gap

In order to understand which solution brings the best value added and to which

building, there is need in revealing a building performance gap. The building

performance gap refers to a comparison of the intended (that is, modeled) and the

actual (that is, monitored) performances.

Today, performance modeling and simulation tools, as well as monitoring devices

and methods attract significant attention in research and industry community.

However, none of these processes (i.e., performance modeling and performance

monitoring) itself cannot produce cumulative improvement of the building

environment; instead, their interaction should be investigated. Dynamic revealing

CHAPTER 4. TOWARDS CUMULATIVE IMPROVEMENT 14

of the performance gap means continuous matching the modeling performance with

the monitoring one in order to identify opportunities for improvement. The defined

improvement opportunities are based on the current building problems, and

leverage development of solutions that can overcome these performance problems.

Therefore, this should improve the overall building industry prosperity, because

solution providers develop and propose their products and service to such buildings,

where the best value added exists. Furthermore, this promotes building

sustainability in terms of reducing resource wasting and environmental impact in

general, as well as improving return on investments of both a customer and a

selection provider.

Modern information technology is an essential facilitator of the performance gap

revealing process. IT is widely applied in industrial operations in order to simplify

a decision-making process, as well as to optimize and improve various operation

tasks. In addition, information technology often represents an enabling mechanism

for innovation.

4.2.1. Performance monitoring

Performance of buildings can be monitored and controlled both manually and by

means of modern ICT tools. One of the approaches to obtain information about the

buildings performance is to conduct Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) studies.

POE studies aim to investigate building’s serviceability (i.e., to ensure that a

building satisfies the defined requirements that are essential to perform its

functions) and to attain feedback from occupants. This is particularly crucial while

implementing an innovative solution. Simple methods to perform POE include

surveys, questionnaires and interviews. However, sometimes there is need to gain

deeper understanding on the building durability, which requires to conduct more

advanced methods, like site inspections or performance monitoring [7].

Performance monitoring and inspections can be assisted by mobile computing

technology. Mobile computing enhances productivity and effectiveness of

construction management, and stipulates avoidance of data duplication [37].


Examples related to mobile computing technology are PDA (or, Personal Digital

Assistant) and QIDMS (or, Quality Inspection and Defect Management System).

Such technologies help to collect data on assets (e.g., overall defect lists, defect

frequency, quality inspection, or trades) and use this data further to manage actions

required to correct and fix the identified defects. There are two reasons of defect

occurrence: either final product does not execute required functionality, or the

required functionality is improper, that is, it does not comply with the user’s needs.

QIDMS allows various participants of a project to access data in order to verify

whether a final product satisfies the established by a customer safety and

environmental requirements [36].

Generally, deployment of PDA and QIDMS provide important benefits for

operation managers, such as faster retrieval of information and instructions, less

error-prone information maintaining, easy monitoring of defects and corrective

actions, an accurate analysis of defects’ causes, and finally, better communication

and information sharing among relevant actors [36, 37]. However, such

technologies still require rather manual work (i.e., manual input of information into

a tool), which is time-consuming. The solution could be an introduction of

technology that enables automated data collection and processing. Therefore, a

trend moves towards the Internet of Things.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a global platform that enables machines and

autonomous digital objects, which are designated as smart objects, to sense,

compute, interpret and process data gathered from other smart objects or physical

world, to react on it, and to communicate information to each other or to end-users.

The Internet of Things has gained wide application in various industries, from

infrastructure construction and logistics to public security and environmental

protection [82].

Smart objects are key entities in IoT, which consume, process, and provide data.

Therefore, they should be identifiable and able to communicate and interact with


other physical and digital objects [64]. There are three types of smart objects [38],

namely:

Activity-aware objects (this is the simplest kind of smart objects that can

only analyze and record data obtained from sensors without interaction with

other objects);

Policy-aware objects (smart objects that can process and react on events and

activities according to the predefined organizational policies; endowed with

the interactive capabilities);

Process-aware objects (these smart objects are aware of the organizational

processes, and can dialogue instructions about tasks, deadlines and

decisions).

Because smart objects are heterogeneous, there is need in establishing a

standardized communication protocol to enable their interoperability. Data fusion

refers to a technique that simultaneously utilizes data collected from different smart

objects [3]. Wireless sensors and RFID have attained a wide interest as means for

identification and interaction of smart objects with the environment. However,

RFID has limitations in use, that is, application only for objects identification and

tracking [64].

A smart building is a new trend in the construction industry, which implements

three main functions: automatic control, learning capabilities and occupancy trend

incorporation [47]. Smart buildings enhance users control and safety, as well as

support resource management, for example, by improving energy consumption.

This raises a need for collecting various physical attributes (e.g., occupancy, indoor

quality, external environment condition, or energy usage) by deploying specific

sensors [80].

Since buildings are major electricity consumers, the problem of energy

management is of significant concern. Acquiring data on power and energy use

helps to predict power consumption and energy demand more accurately. A smart


grid is currently applied technology in this field, and it represents an electrical grid,

where all users are digitally connected to each other. Information exchange,

supporting by the smart grid, affects positively perception, efficiency and

sustainability of the overall electricity service [47]. Furthermore, the smart grid

assumes performance monitoring in real time, which can be leveraged by WSN.

There are three types of devices, which enable monitoring and interactive

capabilities in WSN [81]:

Sensors and actuators, which collect and further transmit data to a router, as

well as perform instructions obtained from a communication node;

A router that connects sensors and a gateway;

A gateway, which task is to be an access point in WSN to other

communication networks.

Generally, wireless sensor network is flexible and economic, but its considerable

drawback is disability to transmit data in a long distance.

Because smart buildings facilitate enormous data collection from different smart

objects, it causes a challenge to assure easy and efficient data storage and retrieval.

Cloud computing can effectively resolve this issue. Cloud computing represents a

flexible approach to manage IT resources by providing capability to share operating

systems, applications, storage and processing capacity among users, and to regulate

computing resources according to the demand for them [9].

The Internet of Things and smart buildings, in particular, enable automated control

and actions triggered by indoor and external condition changes, which results in

comfort and safety of building occupants, economic benefits (e.g., decrease in

operational costs), as well as optimization of energy trade and reduction in

environmental impact.

4.2.2. Performance modeling

Performance-based design assumes development, evaluation and selection of

design options based on their compliance with performance criteria and functional


requirements. While assessing performance-based design, a designer should

analyze such critical building performance criteria as [76]:

Comfort, which relates to different aspects of the indoor environment;

Security, that is, design should prove safety of building users in an

emergency, like fire or natural disasters;

Economy, which means prediction of potential costs, operation and

maintenance plans;

Environment, that is, estimation of energy consumption, carbon footprint

and emissions; and

Structure that concerns, for example, residential planning and materials.

The performance-based approach requires presentation of performance criteria as

quantified values. This is essential to enable comparison of different design

alternatives. In order to analyze identified requirements and to model the overall

performance of a design solution, designers deploy various analytical and

simulation tools.

Such tools take into account various critical issues, like the building performance

potentiality, environmental impact and compliance with national codes and

international standards. Simulation tools assist in defining design solutions that

enable the exceeding minimum performance requirements needed to comply with

building codes, thus creating higher value for a building owner and occupants, and

improving a competitive position of the designed solution on the market.

Generally, the focus of modeling tools lies on energy consumption, HVAC

(Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) analysis, natural and electrical

performance, and acoustical performance [24]. Thus, they emphasize high quality,

cost-efficient and accurate design and construction, and encourage sustainability of

buildings. In addition, modeling and simulation tools perform an important

lifecycle cost analysis of future asset operation. Using such tools, building

stakeholders, thereby, obtain critical understanding on value, risks, serviceability,


and optimal maintenance and lifecycle operation plans [32].

Furthermore, modeling and simulation tools can replace field tests, which are more

expensive, challenging, and time-consuming. Since various test conditions (e.g.,

different climatic alterations) can be considered, this results in safer and more

reliable design solutions [24]. In addition, energy consumption planners can benefit

from using such tools by estimating and planning their energy trades more

accurately.

Despite all mentioned benefits, simulation tools are still rarely used in practice.

Most companies define simulation tools as expensive (that is, requiring higher costs

and computational resources), time-consuming (i.e., most of the activities related

to preparation for simulation and analysis of the results are performed manually)

and demanding stronger competence and professional skills from the personnel

[24]. As a result, most design decisions are made intuitively, leading to uncertainty

and errors in design.

Another significant problem is a large amount of performance parameters that

should be taken into account. One of the major challenges is to understand the

interactions between these parameters as well as how each of them individually

affects the overall building performance. Although these parameters could belong

to different domains, their value is often interdependent. This means that, while

making decisions in one domain, designers should consider attendant changes in

other domains. Moreover, different performance parameters are evaluated by

different evaluation techniques, that is, by different tools. The tools usually

maintain own databases and the input/output interfaces. This makes performance

tracking and conflict resolution across different domains extremely challenging,

and leads to a problem of information exchange and data entry [7, 29].

However, if to refuse the deployment of simulation tools to perform preliminary

studies on potential performance modeling, this can lead to further rework and

increase in maintenance and operation costs. One of the approaches to resolve the


defined above problems is to develop an integrated platform with a common

database. This leads to decrease in time and costs required for decision-making,

improves the consistency in assumptions made in each assessment domain, and as

a result, improves design quality [29, 76]. It should also enhance communication

capability and information exchange among all relevant actors, namely customers,

designers and engineers.

Building Information Modeling is a tool that allows storing all information related

to a building in one database, as well as representing and making this information

visible and constantly available for all participants of a building project. Provided

information includes both geometric representation (i.e., different technical and

functional characteristics) and various engineering data obtained throughout a

lifecycle of a building [40]. To assure interoperability and information exchange,

there is need to establish standards for open data transfer. IFC and COBie represent

examples of such standards. Currently, IFC has attained wider interest and

application in the industry [33].

In addition, BIM supports automated generation and update of documentation,

which enables all stakeholders possess the same and up-to-date information.

Information can be presented in 3D CAD environment. Comparing with 2D

presentation, 3D visualization enhances perception and understanding of geometric

characteristics, relationships and needs among actors with different background

[40].

BIM is used as a supportive tool in making decisions on financial affairs such as

required investments and costs; providing information for lifecycle cost and

environmental analyses; comparing alternatives and selecting one with the best

value added and which is in agreement with sustainable building requirements [33].

For example, BIM is often deployed to simulate energy consumption. By

integrating BIM and real-time monitoring, energy providers can investigate when,

where, and in what amount energy is consumed in buildings, and thus predicting

the energy demand more accurately [47].


Hence, Building Information Modeling brings benefits to each actor. Building

owners support their property management processes and gain more accurate

maintenance and repair schedules. Building users, at the same time, obtain quicker

response to problems and requests, and as a result, this improves their satisfaction

with the service provision. Service providers, including designers and engineers,

can effectively collect, change, retrieve and exchange their business data [33].

BIM covers all phases of the building lifecycle – from design to operation. In a

design phase, BIM enables modeling the facility management and the

environmental impact (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions), automatic evaluation of

design alternatives, identification and resolution of various design conflicts,

accurate cost estimation and scheduling. In a construction phase, BIM is used to

manage on-site activities providing their visualization and the opportunity to obtain

all required information in real time. Therefore, BIM assures quality of a project,

which results in less rework because of improved data sharing and communication,

increase in project productivity, and improvement of overall satisfaction with the

project. In an operation phase, Building Information Modeling facilitates more

efficient and effective asset management, quicker response and higher asset value.

Furthermore, it provides integrated lifecycle data to all relevant actors, which makes

planning and management of operation and maintenance activities more precise and

simple [40, 77].

Although BIM has multiple benefits that improve safety and efficiency during

design, construction and operation of a building, some studies (e.g., [40]) state that

not all industry actors are familiar with this concept, and as a result, BIM requires

significant time and assistance for engineers and managers to deploy it. Moreover,

some stakeholders disagree to share information with others, which constitutes one

of the critical rationales for BIM usage.

4.2.3. Performance evaluation

Performance evaluation is a systematic, strategic-oriented task that assists

companies in measuring various aspects of performance (i.e., evaluation from


environmental, economic and societal perspectives), and in defining a performance

gap between the actual and the desired service levels [2]. Performance gap

identification is beneficial, because it gives essential insights into the development

needs (that is, reveal which solutions are appropriate to the specific problem

solving), and emphasizes a high performance level by minimizing risks of further

demands for significant and costly reconstruction and refurbishment of an asset.

Recently, the industry has shown a considerable interest in environmental

performance assessment, in terms of evaluation of energy consumption, indoor

quality, emissions, and climatic changes. Examples of such-oriented evaluation

tools are GPTool, BREEAM, or LEED. These tools present comprehensive

frameworks for measurement of environmental performance issues, and verify the

compliance with building sustainability targets [35].

Performance assessment is critical, because it enables efficient allocation of

resources required on solving the proper operational tasks. This also improves

condition of a building in a long prospect taking into account such critical aspects

as health, safety and environmental issues. From the financial perspective, it

supports investment justification, which is a crucial aspect for project customers

[66].

There is a growing interest in monitoring and assessing the buildings performance

by means of key performance indicators (KPI). KPIs help to understand condition

of the building performance at the specific point of time and over some period, and

can be used further as a basis in development of new alternatives for building

improvement. Therefore, it is critical to identify explicitly a reference target for

value of each performance indicator [4].

Traditionally, there are two types of performance indicators: key indicators (that is,

indicators that are assessed periodically) and detailed indicators (that is, indicators

that provide more detailed information on causes of the problem defined in a phase

of periodical assessment). However, indicators can be further distinguished by their


functional focus: equipment-related performance, cost-related performance, task-

related performance, customer-related performance, environment-related

performance, and learning- and growth-related performance [66].

Regardless of a type of a performance indicator, it should satisfy the following

criteria: be objective, feasible, flexible, appropriate, cost-efficient, scientifically

valid, and quantifiable; and enable easy use and data access in different phases of a

building lifecycle, as well as support decision-making process [4, 35]. Although

quantified (i.e., physically measured) indicators are preferable and commonly used,

some KPIs cannot be presented by quantified value (e.g., social diversity, ecological

value, climatic change, or usability) [31]. As a result, such aspects require the use

of qualitative indicators, which are characterized as being unreliable and difficult

to measure. A solution could be to present qualitative indicators in a grade system.

Generally, there is no limit in a number of indicators. However, it is crucial to

consider performance indicators in total, that is, to understand interactions between

the indicators and their implication on a building control system. Hence, a large

number of KPIs is not preferable, because it influences negatively on the overall

comprehension and the relative importance of each indicator [4].

The critical indicators that measure building sustainability for the whole lifecycle

of an asset are LCC (Life Cycle Cost) and LCA (Life Cycle Assessment).

LCC is an economic indicator, which describes capital (or, initial) and in-use (or,

consequential) costs, and assists in making a trade-off between them. LCC supports

decision-making from the long-term prospect. This means that LCC analysis can

help to prove the benefits of the option with higher initial, but less ongoing costs

(for example, LCC leverages the employment of expensive, but more safe and

efficient materials) [31]. Therefore, LCC optimization supports the principle of

buildings sustainability and encourages innovation. LCC only focuses on the cost

analysis regardless of the existing income streams. However, sometimes this is not

enough to draw a valid comparison of solutions, therefore, LCC analysis can be


extended to LCE (or, Life Cycle Evaluation), which accumulates lifecycle income

data to LCC [55].

LCA is a method to assess environmental impact, and it can be presented as a four-

step process [62]:

Goals and scope definition;

Inventory analysis (that is, definition of energy and other emissions along

the building lifecycle);

Impact analysis (assessment of the environmental impacts defined on the

previous step);

Improvement analysis (this step identifies improvement opportunities and

proposes potential modification of analyzed products or processes).

LCA requires collection, store and analysis of a large amount of data during the

assessment. Currently, there are different software packages that provide LCA

service. These packages maintain advanced databases of environmental

information and are used for product and process evaluation and improvement [62].

The considerable interest of this thesis is devoted to performance indicators that

relate to assessment of indoor environmental quality. The indoor environment

affects directly building occupants’ well-being, and thus related KPIs focus

primarily on assessment of health and comfort aspects. Such KPIs are generally

divided into five core groups: indoor air quality, thermal comfort, visual comfort,

acoustic comfort, and quality of drinking water [68].

The goal of KPIs devoted to indoor air quality is to control and minimize a level of

pollutants by monitoring indoor air quality, identifying potential problems and their

causes [31, 68].

As for thermal comfort, main performance indicators are air temperature, mean

radiant temperature, air velocity and humidity. These indicators are critical because

they directly influence on biological and psychological well-being of building users


as well as monitor energy use and carbon dioxide emissions [31].

Key performance indicators measuring visual comfort include illuminance and

daylight factor. The KPIs check whether the current lighting solution produces

sufficient light to perform required visual tasks, and to assure safety in a space. It

is crucial to support a high level of visual comfort, since it affects comfort and

efficiency of energy resource consumption [31, 68].

The objective of acoustic comfort KPIs is to reveal that acoustic performance is

sufficient to conduct required acoustic tasks.

Finally, quality of drinking water is monitored by KPI to prevent and control

legionella in the building-in-use water system [68].

4.2.4. Benchmarking

Benchmarking is a strategic tool that enables continuous performance improvement

by assessing and comparing the potential and the intended performances, and

exploring the opportunities for building improvement. Hence, benchmarking

represents a tool for performance measurement and management [78]. It supports

development and cumulative improvement of competences of an organization and

as a result, produces better service to customers. The cumulative improvement of

performance leads to cost and quality optimization.

Generally, benchmarking enables improvement of a product or a process by

comparing the current one with the best available option. For example, solution

providers can benchmark their products/services against other solutions available

on the market, and develop such solutions that are both relevant to the building

specific problems and complying with the best practices in the industry. Therefore,

benchmarking continuously aims to investigate and implement best practices and

innovative ideas, which supports achievement of superior performance [2, 5].

The literature defines several types of benchmarking depending on its goals and

process [5]:


Performance benchmarking – a company compares various performance

metrics, like reliability or quality;

Process benchmarking – focus on improvement of routine operations;

Strategic benchmarking – search for best strategies that are expected to be

successfully implemented in the benchmarking company;

Competitive benchmarking – comparison of performance, a product or

service with the competitor’s one. This is the most challenging approach,

because naturally no one wants to share information that can represent a

competitive advantage;

Cooperative benchmarking – applying experience shared by the

benchmarked company which is not a direct competitor;

Collaborative benchmarking – represents a collaborative initiative in

improving companies’ performance, products or service, and can be

presented as a brainstorming session;

Internal benchmarking – investigation of best practices and improvement

opportunities within the company, which requires comprehensive

understanding on the company performance as a whole.

Applying benchmarking technique should considerably encourage innovation and

improve the societal prosperity and flourishment. Furthermore, benchmarking is to

decrease costs and increase profits of both a solution provider and a building owner,

because of the optimization of processes and proposed solutions. In addition,

benchmarking promotes excellence in operation and maintenance, as well as

provides deep understanding on resources required to achieve superior

performance.

In order to attain all benefits from benchmarking, companies should ensure that the

results of benchmarking agree with the corporate strategy and vision [78].

Moreover, a purpose of benchmarking should be defined and explicitly expressed.


Benchmarking needs evaluation mechanisms and information to prove the

advantages of the proposed solutions [5]. Communication should be extensive and

transparent from the beginning to enable data acquisition [78]. Concerning external

benchmarking, performance indicators should be transformed into a standardized

form to assure the validity of their comparison with indicators of other companies

[2].

Finally, benchmarking has received the growing interest in assessment of building

sustainability. However, in the building environment a comparison of performance

criteria has some specifics. Performance criteria to a large degree depend on local

context, a building type, a pattern of usage, or expected service life; therefore, it is

crucial to assure a functional equivalence regarding a purpose of benchmarking.

The functional equivalence assumes achievement of minimum requirements in

technical and functional characteristics of the building [31].

4.3. Changing a business model

Revealing a performance gap requires movement towards development of a

performance-focused business model, which concerns performance-oriented

contracting and value-based sales. Currently, the building industry is characterized

as being project-oriented, where different actors participate in many different

projects throughout a lifecycle of a building. As a result, neither building owners,

nor solution providers (including designers, architects, manufacturers, service or

product suppliers and other contractors) aspire to share information on the project

performance and invest in solutions that produce the most significant value added

to the overall building performance. Thus, there is need for switching the roles of a

solution provider and a customer. In this new approach, a building owner represents

a supplier of the relevant information on the actual building performance. In

contrast, a solution provider tracks this information to make a decision on a building

performance gap. When the building performance problems are public, the solution

provider can focus its efforts and resources on developing solutions that can close


the specific performance gap. Therefore, since both sides (i.e., a building owner and

a solution provider) obtain up-to-date information on the performance, they can

make better investments into building design, construction and operation activities.

4.3.1. Performance-oriented contracting

There are three typical forms of contracts, namely fixed price, fixed unit price, and

variable budget. A fixed price contract is the most widespread contract type, which

best comply with the tendering procedure. Since the major criterion for supplier

selection in a tender is often the lowest bid, contractors aim to create their proposals

on the lowest possible price. As a result, a contractor is not motivated to perform

risk analysis, because this increases its proposal price. Thus, fixed price contracts

are highly uncertain in terms of possible risks concerning time and budget overrun.

However, because the price is strictly defined in a contract, risk and responsibility

for any additional expenses belong to a contractor. This gives some safeguard for a

customer. At the same time, if a contractor is able to perform a project with less

cost, it can make a margin. Generally, a customer and a contractor have different

goals and interest, which hinders superior quality of the project performance [13].

The concept of fixed unit price is similar to the fixed price contract, although a

contract defines not the overall project price, but only price for a delivered unit. The

unit constitutes a small and repeatable unit. This means that the more units are

delivered, the more a customer pays. Despite dealing with the risk of cost overrun,

there is not mutual goals of both parties. Therefore, in order to increase a margin,

contractors can overcharge unit prices in their contracts [13].

Comparing with the previous contract types, variable budget does not define fixed

costs and prices in a contract. This encourages customers to select contractors based

on quality of their proposals. The payments are only made for hours worked in a

project. Although there are some benefits for both a contractor and a customer, this

type of contracting is highly unpredictable, and thereby rarely used in practice [13].

Performance-based contracting (or, outcome-based contracting) is a relatively new


type of contracting mechanism, where customers pay for the delivered outcome

[50]. In order to achieve the desired outcome, a customer should firstly define its

needs in terms of performance requirements. Then, contractors implement these

requirements in their technical solutions. To prove that solutions actually produce

the intended outcome, it is essential to measure performance requirements. This

means that related methods and data should be available [22].

Performance-based contracting leverages risks sharing between a contractor and a

customer. It also enhances achievement of mutual interests of both sides, because a

solution provider cannot deliver any outcome without value co-creation with a

customer. Generally, benefits from this type of contracting include considerable

reduction in costs and financial audits; improvement of customer needs

understanding; and as a result, increase in customer satisfaction.

Performance-based contracting is widely applied in the public sector, for example,

in transport, health care, or the defense industry. One of the examples of

performance-based contracting is performance-based logistics. Its rationale is that

a contract focuses on the performance outcome, rather than defines tasks and inputs

from a service provider [50].

4.3.2. Value-based sales

Value-based sales focus on identifying customer needs and response to these needs

by developing the best value added and durable solutions. The peculiarity of such

type of sales is a shift from considering the explicit needs to investigating the latent

ones. This makes value-based sales more challenging comparing with a traditional

selling approach, and requires close cooperation between a solution provider and a

customer [70]. Such cooperation relates to a process of value co-creation. Value

co-creation assumes joint contribution of resources from a solution provider and a

customer to problem solving. Examples of such resources could be knowledge,

expertise, or budget.

In the process of value co-creation, the aim of solution providers is to develop and


offer a value proposition, which means that they do not produce any value

themselves; at the same time, customers are responsible for defining value and co-

creating it with the provider [50]. However, in order to co-create value successfully,

both parties need to understand objectives and outcome of the solution development

[1]. Furthermore, it is crucial to assure that a solution provider has sufficient

competence to avoid futile time, money and other resource wasting.

The process of value co-creation can be roughly divided into three steps:

understanding the customer’s needs and business specifics; development of a value

proposition; and communicating the value to the customer [70].

Figure 4.1. Value co-creation process 1

First, a solution provider identifies explicit and implicit needs and analyze a

customer’s business model. When a deep study is conducted, a customer and a seller

negotiate it, specifying the problem in context in details. Thereupon, a solution

provider develops value propositions, and discusses their potentials and required

resources with the customer. This requires application of various quantification

methods, such as value calculation, simulations, ROI (Return on Investments)

definition, or lifecycle costs calculation [70]. These methods reveal the quantified

benefits of the proposed solutions to the customer’s business, which makes

assumptions more trustworthy. The result of this stage is selection of the optimal

value proposition. After the value proposition is determined, value can be co-


created with the customer.

A critical role in value-based sales is given to communication between a customer

and a solution provider. To provide a value proposition, producing significant

benefits to a customer, the latter should announce its recommendations on budget,

schedule, and provide information on the predicted use, business context and needs.

However, the major problem is that customers often do not realize their actual

needs, which makes a dialogue more challenging and requires a solution provider

to be more proactive [1].

It is also essential to assure mutuality of goals and interests between both actors.

Furthermore, value-based sales assumes shifting risks and responsibilities of some

customer’s processes and activities to a solution provider [70].

Although value-based sales have many advantages that result in long-term survival

and growth [70], this also enhances interdependence between customers and

providers. Solution providers require advanced information from customers to

develop a beneficial value proposition, but customers do not always have sufficient

ability or desire to provide it [1].

32

Chapter 5. Industry best practices

5.1. DIGIBUILD project

DIGIBUILD is a new project, started in March 2016, which promotes the idea of

development sustainable solutions that close specific performance gaps, and

thereby, cumulatively improve a buildings-in-use ecosystem. DIGIBUILD

encourages a shift towards a performance-focused business model, which requires

changes in the current practice of product/services development and solution

provider selection.

The project proposes to enhance buildings lifecycle value by developing and selling

solutions that bring to customers the best value added, which means rational

allocation of developing efforts and investments. The DIGIBUILD approach

implies the idea of making a building performance gap public, thus giving

opportunities to solution providers to design and propose solutions that can resolve

a certain performance problem.

Making performance gap visible assumes integration of the monitored and the

modeled information. This means that both kinds of information should be available

and public, in order to leverage designers and engineers to develop solutions based

on the customers’ existing and particularly latent needs. Furthermore, integration

of related information and automated exploration of improvement opportunities

require the development of interactive information systems and decision support

tools. Figure 5.1 presents a framework of the DIGIBUILD proposal. It defines the

context and tasks required to enable value-based development.

Overall, an approach proposition can be presented as following: Moving towards a

performance-focused business model, reveal a performance gap by means of

integrating and comparing monitoring, modeling and simulation information, and

switching the roles of a solution provider and a building owner in order to

cumulatively improve lifecycle value of buildings-in-use.

CHAPTER 5. INDUSTRY BEST PRACTICES 33

Figure 5.1. Tasks enabling value-based development 1

5.2. PERFECTION project

5.2.1. Project objectives and value

Recently, European Union has initiated several projects, which encourage research

on building sustainability. Indoor environmental quality (IEQ) represents a critical

issue that affects significantly building sustainability. The indoor environment

indicates how people feel themselves inside buildings. Because people tend to

spend the most part of their life inside the buildings, maintaining a high level of

building indoor performance is crucial. It affects physical and mental health, as well

as comfort of building users. One of the research initiatives designated to improve

building indoor quality is a three-year PERFECTION project, which was launched

in January 2009.

PERFERCTION project aims to achieve several objectives. The first objective is to

create a performance assessment framework. The framework summarizes a

complete set of key indoor performance indicators that are relevant to assessing,

designing and renovating the indoor environment of each specific building type.


The project focuses on five building types: residential buildings, offices, schools,

hospitals and exhibition buildings. Each building type has its specific requirements

for indoor quality, thus making critical to adjust significance of performance

indicators to the assessment target.

The performance assessment framework represents a tool, which helps to reveal the

overall performance of a building evaluated in a structured way [57]. Furthermore,

the tool should enable utilization of the proposed assessment methods at the

European unified level. This enhances buildings benchmarking against a standard

performance level.

After developing the performance assessment tool, the second objective of

PERFECTION is to implement this theoretical framework in practice. To ensure

reliability of the tool, it was firstly tested in ten case studies. Thereupon, the

PERFECTION team has developed an ICT toolbox, which represents a web-based

platform, where all interested actors can communicate to each other. The platform

tasks include evaluation of products, services and facilities against the KIPI model,

publication of the assessment results, and search of best practices and opportunities

for improvement. The toolbox aims to reinforce information exchange and data

sharing on up-to-date buildings’ conditions, as well as to promote innovative

products and services that significantly contribute to IEQ.

The PERFECTION project encourages building sustainability by revealing direct

and indirect benefits of sustainable design and development, for instance, economic

incentives or easiness of understanding and application of new technology [39].

The assessment tool leverages evaluation of the proposed solutions in terms of their

economic, environmental and social impact. From a long-term perspective, the

project aims to enhance innovation and encourage application of new design and

technologies in the building industry [56].

The project targets three user groups including building industry stakeholders (e.g.,

designers, product or service providers), building users (that is, owners and building


tenants) and policy makers that are responsible for developing regulations and

standards. The PERFECTION project set value for all three user groups. Building

owners can understand problems and areas for improvement based on the results of

assessment of their facility performance. They can further search for solutions

available on the market, which provide the best value added to their specific

building. Solution developers can benchmark their products and services against

other proposals, as well as easily search and communicate with potential customers

who would gain the best benefits from their proposals. Finally, policy makers can

access to the best industry practices and stimulate their application on the market

by developing and improving local polices and standards [20].

Overall, the innovativeness of the PERFECTION approach lies on developing a

framework that brings together all relevant indicators, and proposing a unified

method for evaluation of buildings performance [39].

5.2.2. Proposed solution

As a starting point of development of the performance assessment framework, that

is called PERFECTION KIPI, a project team investigated the existing standards,

regulations, policies, new and emerging technologies, and research activities, which

consider the problem of the indoor environment of buildings. Overall, building

regulations of 27 countries have been analyzed. As being an EU-funded project,

PERFECTION focused on European regulations, considering the following four

documents as the core ones: the Energy Performance of Building Directive, the

Construction Products Directive, the European Environment & Health Action Plan,

and the Green Public Procurement Policy [15]. The result at this point was

producing a list of more than 100 indicators. However, the initial set of indicators

was too long to satisfy the intention of the project to create a practical and simple

performance assessment framework. Therefore, the list of indicators has been

further shorten after consulting with experts in the building industry. The

consultancy included primarily online questionnaires, but also interviews with the

related stakeholders [57]. Eventually, 31 indicators form the final KIPI assessment


framework (Appendix A).

KIPI has a hierarchical structure that consists of three levels. The first level (i.e., an

abstract level) represents of a list of core indicators. There are four core categories

of indicators: Health and Comfort; Safety and Security; Usability and Positive

Stimulation; and Adaptability and Serviceability. The second level contains eight

performance indicators, which describe core indicators. Finally, the third level

forms a list of 31 technical indicators and parameters [30]. These indicators

represent quantitative, qualitative or descriptive parameters that can be further

assessed.

In order to simplify understanding of the framework, each indicator is supplied with

the following details [67]:

Name, which enables easy identification of the proper indicator among the

whole list;

Description, which presents a short description of the indicator’s meaning;

Unit, that is, an indicator’s unit of measure; and

Assessment method. There are different methods of performance evaluation

depending on a current stage of a building lifecycle.

Generally, the project is devoted to assessment of buildings in either design, or

operation phases. However, in both cases indicators are evaluated by a five-level

performance scale, namely by one of the letter in a range from A to E. The letter

‘A’ refers to the highest performance level of an indicator, and ‘E’ to the lowest

level, respectively. Class ‘D’ states the minimum regulatory performance level [58].

Although there are 31 indicators in total, it is not mandatory to assess all of them.

The reason is that different buildings have different requirements to indoor quality

depending on their function, and as a result, some indicators could be irrelevant to

the specified building type. Moreover, indicators have various importance to the

building, which should be taken into account in building assessment. Assigning

weights to the indicators can resolve this issue.


The weighting of KIPI is based on a theory of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

This approach enhances development of subjective judgements and decision-

making in a structured way. Each indicator gains the weight in a range of 0-1, which

reveals its subjective importance in the overall performance assessment and can

reflect local regulatory specifics (Appendix B). The total value of all indicators’

weights should be equal to ‘1’. Furthermore, the weighting represents a bottom-up

procedure. This means that weights are firstly assigned to technical indicators (level

3), then to performance indicators (level 2), and finally to the core indicators (level

1) [30]. In the KIPI environment, a user has a choice either to apply the proposed

weights, or to set his/her values according to own agenda and priorities. However,

if different users evaluate similar buildings using their personalized weights, this

makes the reliable comparison of such buildings impossible. Thereby, this

discourages benchmarking opportunity, which forms the critical value in the

PERFECTION project.

In addition, KIPI defines the impact on building sustainability (i.e., social,

environmental and economic aspects), which each indicator produces. The

evaluation is performed by means of a three-level scale. The highest impact is

designated as ‘3 stars’ symbol, while one star represents the lowest impact,

respectively. The white star denotes irrelevance of the indicator. Overall, the

weights and the impact on sustainability reveal significance and priority of the

indicators to each considered building type [67].

Further, the KIPI framework is implemented as a web-based platform, where users

(both building owners and solution providers) can assess their assets. The online

indicator toolbox consists of two sections. The first section collects general

information on a building, including its location (for example, country and address),

project participants (including an owner and an architect), a building type, a

lifecycle stage, site information (e.g., a gross-floor area), and a number of occupants

[67].

The second section concerns evaluation of performance indicators. When the


weights are assigned and the indicators are assessed, KIPI calculates a score of

indoor environmental quality, that is, a number in a range of 0-100 (Figure 5.2

presents an example of a KIPI score). The score can relate to the overall building

performance or define separate value for each core indicator. Since some indicators

can be irrelevant or present low significance for building assessment, they are not

taken into account in score definition. Moreover, there is no penalty for excluding

any indicators from the calculation. However, this affects the reliability of the

assessment, which is reflected by the KIPI coverage. The KIPI coverage illustrates

a percentage of indicators used in assessment to their total number. The developed

toolbox publishes this information in the platform [58, 67].

Figure 5.2. KIPI score (Source: http://cic.vtt.fi/kipi/showcase.php?project_id=153 )1

In addition to the assessment functionality, the web-based platform performs as the

information exchange and communication channel between building owners and

product/service sellers. For example, user forum enables fast and easy attainment

of additional information.

Overall, the PERFECTION web service for evaluating the indoor performance

quality presents the following main features [20]:

Solution providers can publish information on their products and services

that have been preliminary evaluated against the KIPI framework;

Building owners can publish information on their facilities assessed by KIPI

indicators;

Both parties can obtain email notifications when there are any uploads

related to the interesting performance indicator;


Solution providers as well as building owners can freely browse across all

services searching the best value added offerings and investigating indoor

performance benchmarks;

All stakeholders can directly contact the required actors through the

platform.

5.2.3. Evaluation against the DIGIBUILD approach

The major interest of the PERFECTION project is to propose the assessment of

buildings performance in a unified way. This can be done by developing a simple

and standardized performance assessment framework, and by providing online

services to make performance assessment information public. The project

stimulates the development of solutions in circumstances of applying a

performance-based approach and moving towards value-based sales. Assessing

building condition and revealing performance gaps should encourage innovation

and knowledge-focused development, thus improving the overall quality of the

indoor environment.

Generally, PERFECTION and DIGIBUILD projects have many similarities in their

approaches, which allows comparing the projects gradually using the concepts of

the DIGIBUILD framework.

Performance modeling & Performance monitoring

In the PERFECTION project, discussion on performance modeling and monitoring

mainly concerns the application of key performance indicators. The project states

that KPIs are necessity, which enables designers to identify critical points in design.

Thereby, KPIs help to state performance objectives, assess and monitor the current

condition and performance progress of facilities [30].

PERFECTION proposes the following process of collecting information on

building performance. First, simple performance assessment methods should be

applied. This includes expert reviews and surveys (e.g., POE). However, if an

indicator is critical for a specified building type, advanced assessment methods can


provide information in details. The advanced assessment methods include different

simulations and measurement. Furthermore, it is highlighted that design and

operational phases support different approaches to collection of information on

building performance. While in a design phase assessment can be performed only

by expert reviews or simulation tools, in an operation phase on-site activities are

also capable of being conducted [57].

Overall, the project holds only shallow discussion on performance monitoring and

modeling. Moreover, there is not detailed research on modern tools and

technologies that can be deployed for these tasks (e.g., BIM or IoT).

Performance evaluation

Performance evaluation is a core objective of the PERFECTION project. The

project focuses on development of the performance assessment framework, KIPI,

which has the potential to become an EU standard [39]. The main concepts and

principles of performance assessment are presented in the ‘Proposed solution’

section.

Generally, PERFECTION concerns performance evaluation in two separate phases

– building design and operation. The goal of performance assessment on a design

stage is to verify that the predicted performance of new buildings or buildings under

renovation satisfies the required performance level. From the other side,

performance evaluation in an operation phase aims to measure current performance

condition of existing facilities and define possible actions to improve it [67].

Furthermore, because buildings are often employed for several functions (i.e.,

different activities could be done inside a building), this results in a variety of

performance requirements. Therefore, the project recommends evaluating building

indoor performance separately for each activity area [57]. This enhances

understanding on the actual building performance, and enables accurate definition

of required corrective actions.


Finally, evaluation is conducted under a performance-based approach. This

assumes analysis of performance indicators as a basis for performance judgements,

while indirect assessments by means of prescriptive requirements and assumptions

on technological solutions are not applicable [58].

Benchmarking

Benchmarking represents an essential process in the PERFECTION project. The

tool developed under this research allows citizens and particularly construction

experts to benchmark buildings against a standard performance level. There are five

building types considered in the project. In order to assure reliable benchmarking,

each building type should refer to its own standard performance level. A building

that achieves the standard performance level relates to a reference building. The

reference building assumes that performance of any indicator related to this

building type is satisfactory and complying with EU standards and regulations.

Although there could be some differences in regulations across Europe, the project

recommends standardizing the reference buildings in order to enable the building

comparison between countries [67].

The PERFECTION does not support the complete benchmarking process, but

focuses on maintaining a database of building cases, which enables users to access

to best practices available on the market [39].

Gap revealing

Making performance visible is one of the crucial goals, which the developed web-

based service should perform. The tool enables definition of both the actual and the

potential performances. However, in the PERFECTION project the process of

performance revealing is static, which means grading the building performance by

a letter. KIPI score presents a total gap between the intended and the actual

performances. All performance assessments must be executed by means of the KIPI

framework, which constitutes a unified method for presenting the building indoor

performance.


Exploring improvement opportunities & Solution proposal

A benefit of the proposed approach is that solution providers can search for

opportunities in closing a performance gap, while verifying the current condition of

the assessed buildings. Solution providers can specify from one to three indicators

that their solutions focus on. Using this information, the providers can browse or

request such assets, where specified indicators have low performance. Thereby,

they can further propose their solutions to customers, who would attain the best

value and thus would be potentially interested in these solutions.

Such approach results in more reasonable and knowledge-based development and

promotion of solutions that significantly contribute to indoor environmental quality

[39].

Performance-focused business model

The PERFECTION project aims to change the current business model by

encouraging value-based sales. This enforces the development of solutions based

on information about market demand, and stimulates the innovation initiatives in

the industry. The PERFECTION project also concerns a risk management issue

considering information exchange as an essential way of risks minimization [20].

Building users are involved into product/service creation from an early stage, which

leads to better understanding on their needs, optimization of investments and

resource usage, as well as higher customer satisfaction with the proposed solutions.

5.3. LinkedDesign project

5.3.1. Project objectives and value

LinkedDesign is a European Union project, which aims to improve current practices

in design and manufacturing phases. Manufacturing has critical value for the

European economy, since it makes a significant contribution to GDP and market

workforce. Improving productivity of this sector is essential for the European

economy growth and competitiveness on the global market. Therefore, EU has


launched new research initiative that should stimulate flourishment of the

manufacturing sector [41].

The main output of research is development of the integrated information system.

The information system focuses on providing user-centric lifecycle information

management, and performs the following tasks, which initially constitute the

objectives of research [41]:

1. Collecting all information concerning a product regardless its format,

location and a phase of a product lifecycle;

2. Providing analysis and context-driven access to product data, which means

the system enables sorting and displaying data to users according to their

roles and assignments;

3. Enforcing users collaboration (i.e., the system provides advanced social

networking capabilities, which help to search appropriate competence and

know-how solutions fast and easy inside the company);

4. Transmitting feedback into the existing system.

A manufacturing product lifecycle is rather long and consists of five phases, which

Figure 5.3 presents.

Figure 5.3. Phases of manufacturing machinery and equipment lifecycle (Source: [63]) 1

Generally, each phase generates some sort of product data, which can be used on

further lifecycle stages. Hence, an enormous amount of data occurs along the whole

product lifecycle, which is usually spread across various data sources. Currently,

employees often search required information on products manually, wasting a

significant amount of their worktime and making a process of data collection time-

consuming and error-prone. LinkedDesign aims to resolve this problem providing

a flexible and low-maintenance solution that enables easy search and federation of

data related to product design or production [79].


Moreover, data is often stored in different formats including both structured and

unstructured. One of the project goals is to enable data integration, which ensures

capturing all relevant data (e.g., text, pictures, illustrations, technical

specifications), but eliminating unnecessary data duplication.

In addition to data integration, it is crucial to ensure that all project participators

have access to the required data. The participators have different roles in a project

and have different demand for information. Hence, there is need to support context-

driven acquisition of information. Furthermore, conducting assignments,

employees often collaborate with other project stakeholders, thus enhancing the

criticality of information exchange and sharing across multiple departments or even

different companies. Supporting context-driven data management encourages

exchange of information among relevant actors and simplifies a problem-solving

process making easier to search people responsible for the assigned tasks.

Generally, LinkedDesign aims to improve design efficiency and sustainability, and

to provide services for fast assessment of design alternatives (e.g., LCC/LCA

analysis). As for manufacturing, the project improves quality management by

means of providing services to monitor data obtained from a site and comparing

this data with the initial design.

Hence, the developed integrated information system presents a single entry point

for displaying all lifecycle data concerning each specific product. This leads to easy

retrieval of required information, thus significantly decreasing time spent on

information search and improving information representation because of reduced

duplication of similar information. Furthermore, the proposed approach helps to

avoid employment of external tools for performing analysis on retrieved data and

visualizing the data in proper reports and presentations [43]. Finally, the system

encourages remote and real-time communication between actors and departments

within and across the organizations. As a result, this simplifies sharing of ideas and

concepts, increases quality of service provision, and decreases time required to

resolve the occurred problems and to release a manufacturing product on the


market.

5.3.2. Proposed solution

During the project a web-oriented integrated information system has been

developed, which is called LEAP (or, Linked Engineering and mAnufacturing

Platform). Leap represents both a search engine, which explores knowledge as well

as captures, updates and shares up-to-date information across departments and

organizations, and a decision support tool that can be used for further data analysis.

Leap focuses on three major user groups, such as designers, engineers and

production operators, but also targets other stakeholders that can contribute to

product manufacturing, like service providers, suppliers or marketing experts [43].

For example, using the Leap platform, designers can perform comprehensive

analysis considering advanced parameters, which results in developing more value

added and competitive solutions. On the other hand, during an operation phase,

facility operators can acquire data from a site to monitor quality of the production

process.

Main usage tasks that Leap is expected to perform (i.e., capturing an enormous

amount of data and knowledge, real-time information sharing, or reports

generation) stimulate the deployment of cost-effective and widely accessible

technology, as well as support the remote and distributed work [43]. Therefore,

Leap operates in a cloud platform.

Leap is a dynamic platform, which assumes gradual buildup of functionalities over

time [43]. Therefore, Leap pursues a service-oriented architecture. The platform

architecture consists of three layers: the User Interfaces Layer, the Service Layer,

and the Data Sources Layer.

The highest layer, namely the User Interfaces Layer, presents UI components that

enable user interaction with the platform, that is, data collection and analysis,

reporting, and communication features. This includes the following user interfaces

[53]:


Chart-based reporting;

MS Excel Plug-In;

KBE Integration GUI;

MS OneNote/Word Plug-In;

Graph Visualization;

Matching UI;

Production Line Realtime Monitor;

3D CAD Browser;

PLM Statistics;

Lifecycle Data Analysis;

Virtual Obeya.

Virtual Obeya is a front-end of the platform, which represents a single entry point

to the Leap functionality. In Virtual Obeya information gathered from the previous

layers is integrated and shared to users’ desks and workspaces. In addition, Leap

supports collaborative environment from SAP StreamWork. StreamWork is a

decision-making platform that aims to provide collaboration services, improve team

productivity, and support synchronization services through real-time information

sharing and notifying on the latest uploads and activity changes [41, 43].

The Service Layer defines a set of services that Leap is supposed to perform, thus

forming the platform functionality. Generally, services can be divided into two

groups: data services (i.e., services that support data filtering and retrieval from data

sources), and Leap services (that is, services with the predefined UI, which enable

the specific platform functionality). Standardized communication interfaces (e.g.,

QLM MI) are required to interact and gain access to services. The following

services organize the middle layer of the Leap architecture [53]:

Chart-based Reporting Service – enables creation and edition of reports;

Knowledge Acquisition and Codification;

KBE Service – is a framework that enables users to identify the best


problem-solving option by capturing and reusing product and process

engineering knowledge;

Object Matching Service – applies for data integration from several sources

by identifying semantic relevance between objects and preventing data

duplication;

Smart Links Infrastructure – supports automatic computing of links between

data objects;

Schema Matching Service – automatically calculates similarities between

elements of two data structures;

Semantic Mediator Service – responsible for data integration and provision

to project-related actors;

Semantic Reasoner Service – enables rules management, which increases

time efficiency and supports quality assurance;

Measuring Data Processing and Sensor Data Analysis;

Dialog – a middleware that receives data from real-time monitoring tools

(e.g., machine sensors) and transmits this data to PLM Data Service;

PLM Data Service – establishes matching between data collected from

sensors or measures and physical objects, as well as provides an object’s

history along the whole product lifecycle;

Instance Importer – creates an instance of the ontology and imports data in

the required storage mechanism; and

LCC/LCA Analysis.

The Leap platform provides an opportunity to conduct analysis and define the best

alternative that satisfies needs of a customer. However, to attain the most value

added, the best solution should be selected not only based on customer’s

requirements, but also considering benefits of the proposed alternative from a long-

term perspective. For that reason, solutions should be assessed in terms of costs and

environmental impact along the whole product lifecycle, which involves the

definition of the LCC/LCA ratio [63]. In order to perform LCC/LCA analysis,


simulation tools (e.g., Product Lifecycle Optimization tool) supported by the Leap

platform are deployed to reduce a number of optimal solutions, and thus optimizing

time required to make a decision [52].

Generally, LCC value represents a sum of four elements, namely acquisition cost,

operating cost, maintenance cost, and conversion/decommission cost [63].

Accuracy and reliability of the defined LCC value highly depends on the

availability of related information. Therefore, it is critical to ensure that all

stakeholders working on LCC analysis attain up-to-date information.

The last layer concerns data sources, which corresponds to collection of documents,

CAD models, and various databases [53].

A general structure of Leap includes two key bundles: Knowledge Exploitation

Bundle and QLM. The former, in turn, consists of LCC/LCA service that processes

lifecycle data, defines and optimizes the intended performance; and Chart-based

reporting service that is responsible for displaying data from the LCC/LCA service,

as well as creating, managing and sharing reports. As for QLM, it represents a

communication standard that enables information capturing and thus supports a

decision-making process [11].

Since LinkedDesign supports data federation and its exchange between different

stakeholders, data integration holds the project’s significant attention.

LinkedDesign mainly focuses on integration of heterogeneous data from sources to

a single database, which creates a holistic view on data and prevents possible data

duplication. Therefore, it is critical to provide a standardized way to data

presentation as well as to enable its accessibility and processing capability [79].

QLM MI is a flexible communication interface that supports exchange of

heterogeneous product information between Leap components and nodes [43].

The Leap platform has been tested by three large global enterprises, namely Comau,

Aker Solutions and the Volkswagen Group. However, all three companies pursue

different targets that specify features and functionalities of the platform.


Comau is a global organization, which business focuses on providing process

automation solutions [79]. Within the Comau case, the project’s objective is to

improve lifecycle cost calculation. For this goal, Leap aims to federate product data

related to LCC analysis (including customer’s data and requirements) and to

provide the unified access to the integrated data throughout the whole product

lifecycle.

Aker Solutions is one of the global leaders in the gas and oil industry, which

provides engineering service/product solutions and technologies [79]. Aker

Solutions aims to deploy Leap in a design phase in order to improve collaborative

sharing and reuse of knowledge across multiple distributed teams working on

multidisciplinary projects. Furthermore, Leap should support automatic design

solutions, that is, the capability to automate design routine activities [53].

Consequently, benefits from the platform are cost reduction and higher quality

decisions on operational and managerial levels.

The final use case concerns the Volkswagen Group, which represents a leading

global manufacturer on the automobile market [79]. The focus of LinkedDesign in

this case lies on improvement of production quality and quality management by

means of optimized process reliability. Therefore, Leap is used to unify collection

of data in different data formats to monitor the process quality and to define

production defects as well as their causes. This means that the platform intends to

support the following services: failure detection, failure analysis and process

adjustment [79]. In addition, the Leap’s critical aim is to enable data sharing across

different departments of the enterprise.


The overall aim of the LinkedDesign project is development of the integrated

information system (Leap) to enable federation of data in different formats and from

different sources in order to enhance user-centric lifecycle information management

in design and production phases.

In a design phase, Leap is deployed in two use cases. The first use case is dedicated


to provision of LCC/LCA analysis, that is, the Comau scenario. The outcome is

improved design efficiency and sustainability. The second case is the Aker Solution

scenario. Aker Solution employs Leap to share and reuse knowledge obtained in

previous projects. Thus, the goal of LinkedDesign is to enhance collaboration

between stakeholders and to enable automatic design in order to reduce costs and

time required to make decision as well as improve their quality.

In a production phase, Leap application refers to the Volkswagen Group case. Leap,

in assistance with the Trimek tool, enables monitoring of the production process.

The aim is to improve quality management and reliability of the manufacturing

process.

Although LinkedDesign mainly focuses on data management rather than

performance management, the approach and concepts of this project can contribute

to the problem of cumulative performance improvement. Hence, LinkedDesign is

evaluated further against the DIGIBUILD approach.

Performance monitoring & Gap revealing

In order to ensure high quality of the production process, it is critical to monitor

continuously the condition of operating machines and equipment. For that reason,

Leap supports services that monitor in-line quality of assets by means of capturing

relevant data from the production line [79]. This requires installation of sensors into

the machine. Thereupon, using the Dialog service, Leap retrieves data from the

sensors and sends it to the PLM Data Service, which, in turn, attaches transmitted

data to the related products. Further, analyzing product design specifications, a

production manager can compare the actual and the intended product performances

in a single place and identify whether a product has any defects.

Performance gap revealing, in this case, improves design and production in terms

of efficiency and timesaving in recognizing a problem and its causes in the initial

design or production, and in modeling an alternative problem-solving solution

based on benchmarking the actual and the intended performances.


Performance modeling

In the LinkedDesign project, performance modeling mainly concerns the provision

of LCC analysis. Calculating LCC value is crucial in order to develop an efficient

solution for a customer. Although a designer usually conducts LCC analysis in a

proposal phase, it is also essential to calculate LCC during the whole product

lifecycle. LCC analysis facilitates optimization in decision-makings and resource

allocation.

Leap assures continuous collection and integration of all data related to LCC

calculation and enables designers to easily model and stimulate alternative design

and engineering solutions.

Benchmarking

Considering the Aker Solutions scenario, LinkedDesign concerns and implements

the benchmarking process, namely internal benchmarking. Generally,

benchmarking means that a company analyzes its current product or process;

defines the available best solution; and compares both of them. Thereupon, the

company obtains understanding on what and how should be improved, and adjusts

its solutions and processes according to this knowledge. Hence, this complies with

the LinkedDesign proposal.

Leap supports the KBE approach providing capability to acquire and store

knowledge and experience from the previous projects and reuse it later [79].

Therefore, it facilitates design based on already performed projects’ success, but

taking into account previous problems and failures either. Consequently, this

decreases required time and efforts to define design problems and inconsistences,

and thereby improves quality of design.

Solution proposal

Concerning a design stage, Leap supports automatic calculation of LCC items for

each solution [63], which enhances reliability and time-efficiency of solution


proposals development. Furthermore, LCC/LCA service facilitates an adaptive

decision-making process by processing and linking product design to information

captured during the whole product lifecycle [79]. Finally, Leap supports

collaboration among project stakeholders providing a communication channel to

discuss all project-related issues in order to understand better demand and

requirements of customers, as well as ideas and concepts of designers. As a result,

this significantly improves quality of the proposed solutions.

5.4. ESCO example

5.4.1. Principles of ESCO

The current emphasis on controlling the environmental impact (e.g., decrease in

CO2 emissions) and increase in energy prices has led to the growing interest in new

and efficient approaches to control of energy consumption. One of the modern and

becoming more popular approaches is ESCO (Energy Service Company). ESCO

represents a company (usually private and profit-oriented), which provides turnkey

energy services aiming at optimization and improvement of energy efficiency of

facilities. Achieving energy efficiency is crucial, because the ESCO reward directly

depends on the energy savings. As such, this raises the criticality of accurate energy

measurement and energy savings verification. IPMVP (i.e., the International

Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol) is an instrument

recommended by the European Commission DG JRC to support a measurement

and verification process and to enhance understanding on risks allocation and

management [18].

Another group of companies offering energy-efficient services is ESPC (or, Energy

Service Provider Company). For example, ESPC provides such services as the

supply and installation of energy-efficient equipment, building refurbishment,

maintenance and operation. The difference between ESPC and ESCO lies on a

reward system. While ESCO is paid for the results (that is, the energy savings),

ESPC charges a fixed fee for their equipment or service. Therefore, for ESPC there

is no risk in a case of underperformance.


EPC (i.e., Energy Performance Contracting) is a form of the ESCO contract, which

defines a level of energy efficiency improvement, as well as the means of its

monitoring and verification during the whole service provision. The payment terms

should be also established explicitly in a contract. Depending on the distribution of

investments, savings and risks, there are two sub-forms of EPC, namely shared

savings and guaranteed savings [12].

The shared savings assume that ESCO performs financing and attains a share of

energy costs savings in return. This share of savings is not fixed and is dependent

on the terms of a contract: its length, payback time and risks. Generally, this model

is attractive for ESCO developing markets, because there is no financial risk for

clients, and therefore this stimulates them to use ESCO service.

Comparing with the shared savings, in the guarantee savings a customer is

responsible for financing (i.e., paying for services of the contractor), and ESCO

assures a certain level of the energy savings, that is, takes all performance risks

from a customer [18].

Despite EPC, there are other types of ESCO contracts, for example [12]:

1) ‘First out’ approach – ESCO obtains all energy savings until project

investments and ESCO profit are fully reimbursed. As such, the length of a

contract depends directly on the energy savings;

2) ‘Comfort contracting’ – ESCO covers not only energy services, but also

facilitates maintenance services (e.g., by assuring the comfort level and the

healthy indoor environment). This approach is widespread in the Nordic

countries;

3) ‘Delivery contracting’ – focuses on outsourcing energy services. One of the

forms is chauffage contracting, which has received the most interest in

recent years. Pursuing this approach, ESCO has the strongest stimulus to

provide services in the most efficient way, because its earnings directly

depend on the energy efficiency improvement. The customer’s existing bills

for energy use minus a set guarantee in the monetary savings define a


service fee. This type of contract is usually very long (20-30 years), where

ESCO is also responsible for maintenance and operation during the contract.

The main driver to use the ESCO model for both sides is financial benefits.

Customers optimize energy consumption, and therefore reduce their bills. Service

providers, in turn, raise their profit by producing significant energy savings.

Thereby, the market forces, like the increasing energy costs and taxes, lead to the

growing interest among clients, thus driving the ESCO market to flourish.

Furthermore, governments of most developed countries focus on promoting

sustainable development and decreasing the environmental impact. Therefore, they

support the ESCO market by developing associated research programmes and

legislation.

Generally, ESCO is beneficial in many aspects, for example: assuring energy

efficiency improvement; increasing health and comfort of facility occupants;

improving building lifecycle value; and finally, facilitating the societal prosperity

and the public image.

However, despite all benefits of the ESCO model, it is not widely employed

globally. The main reason is lack of comprehensive definition of the ESCO

concepts and business. Hence, clients do not clearly understand benefits of the

ESCO model, and as a result, there is not trust between the clients and ESCOs. In

addition, ESCO is associated with high transactional costs. In order to attain

benefits from the ESCO model and receive high return on investments, a customer

should consider ESCO from the long-term perspective. Moreover, although

monitoring and verification of the energy savings is critical, there is still lack of

proper monitoring and verification practices. Finally, inappropriate (that is, rapidly

changing) legislation hinders the growth of the ESCO market, because it is highly

challenging and risky to comply with long-term ESCO contracts in such

circumstances [12].

Because buildings produce most energy consumption and emissions, this sector is


becoming one of the critical customer target group for ESCOs. Currently, there are

various initiatives and pilot projects inside the residential sector.

5.4.2. TOPAs project, objectives and values

Buildings represent a large source of energy consumption as well as a significant

producer of greenhouse gases [46]. Therefore, improvement in energy efficiency

and reduction of the environmental impact form the critical concerns within EU

research field, which encourages productivity and innovativeness of the European

economy and market. According to the European development strategy, ‘Horizon

2020’, around 60% of research budget supports sustainable development, namely

investigation and development of innovative solutions that decrease the

environmental impact (e.g., reduced carbon footprint by 20%), enhance the

economic prosperity (for example, increase in efficiency of energy consumption by

20%), and assure health and comfort of building occupants [28].

EeB-07-2015, which topic is “New tools and methodologies to reduce the gap

between predicted and actual building energy performances at the level of buildings

and blocks of buildings”, is a call for proposals of projects in the field of Energy-

efficient Buildings (EeB). The objective of this initiative is to develop new and

innovative methodology to monitor and assess the actual energy performance of

buildings and identify the existing EPGs (i.e., energy performance gaps), as well as

its causes and consequences [23]. This helps to calculate building energy

consumption over the whole building lifecycle more accurately. The achievement

of this goal requires the development of energy monitoring and evaluating methods

and tools like performance indicators, sensing technologies and data analysis

methods. Eeb-07-2015 assumes development of an online interactive platform,

which collects data on the actual performance from the delivery and operation

phases. Feedback obtained from the online platform facilitates the adjustment of a

corrective actions plan to close a gap between the intended and the in-use energy

performances. The initiative, overall, focuses on developing an intelligent energy

management system, which optimizes energy demand and supply in real time [17,


23].

TOPAs (the Tools for cOntinuous building Performance Auditing) is an ongoing

project launched under the acronym EeB-07-2015. The project was started in

November 2015 and its duration constitutes 36 months.

The project focuses on providing understanding on a gap between the intended and

the actual energy performances, and reducing the EPG to 10% [73]. Identifying

both the EPG and its causes is crucial, because it enables to correct and adjust

energy plans and activities. Consequently, this decreases costs by means of

producing up to 20% of the energy savings, improving occupants’ health and

comfort issues, and encouraging buildings sustainability in general.

TOPAs aims to develop a holistic performance-auditing framework implemented

in a cloud-based platform and consisted of decision support tools and analytic

methodologies, which support continuous monitoring of energy performance on an

operational level [73]. In addition to measuring energy consumption, TOPAs

evaluates air quality and the environmental state. The main target user groups are

building owners, facility managers and energy saving companies (ESCOs).

Generally, the research plan includes the performance of the following steps [74]:

Defining technical and functional requirements as well as architecture of the

TOPAs framework by analyzing current industry needs and best practices

in the area of performance monitoring solutions;

Identifying EnPIs (or, Energy Performance Indicators) that enable

monitoring and evaluation of the building energy performance;

Creating a platform for performance monitoring across multiple buildings

by implementing an open BMS (Building Management System) approach;

Developing complex models for continuous performance prediction taking

into account energy usage, indoor air quality, occupants behavior and

equipment effectiveness;

Implementing DMPC (i.e., Distributed Model Predictive Control) –a system


that supports optimization of energy management by changing model and

controller parameters in order to balance power demands and to minimize

the EPG;

Exploiting new and enhanced decision support tools to reveal stakeholders

benefits in terms of cost reduction and improved indoor air quality;

Evaluating the TOPAs concepts and solutions in three test cases – IBM

Campus in Dublin, Ireland; CIT Campus in Cork, Ireland; and Galeo

Building in Paris, France.


TOPAs, as being a part of EeB-07-2015 initiative, focuses on the problem of

revealing an energy performance gap (that is, the discrepancy between the intended

and the actual energy demand) and identifying causes and consequences of this gap.

The project aims to support ESCO principles, thus promoting the importance of

monitoring both the energy use and the environmental and air quality in a building’s

operation phase. To enable this goal, TOPAs develops a set of analytic tools and

methodologies, which help to monitor and model energy performance and facilitate

corrective decision-making in real time. This should produce significant increase in

energy efficiency, as well as assure comfort and healthy conditions for occupants

living or working in a building.

TOPAs does not support all elements of the DIGIBUILD approach, but concerns

most of them. Overall, both projects pursue similar approaches and goals to

performance auditing and performance gap revealing.

Performance modeling & Performance monitoring

A problem of the current performance auditing is that it is the one-off process,

which is carried out at a specific point of time and has the limited duration. Because

factors influencing on energy demand and consumption can vary over time (e.g.,

due to changes in weather conditions), a single performance audit does not provide

accurate and reliable results. The problem solving is continuous performance


auditing, where stakeholders can attain a detailed report on constantly measuring

energy performance in order to adjust their energy management plans and minimize

the EPG [71].

TOPAs focuses on developing tools that both measures the actual performance and

maintains models for continuous performance prediction. Modeling and

monitoring tasks are integrated into one platform, which is designed under the open

BMS approach, to reveal a gap between the prediction and the current state of

performance in real time. In addition, the project aims to develop performance

indicators, called EnPIs, to facilitate measurement and sharing of the ongoing

performance.

Gap revealing & Exploring improvement opportunities

Collecting data on the actual and the intended energy performances in the integrated

BMS platform enables analysis of an enormous amount of energy-related data and

identification of performance gaps, that is, exploring areas for improvement. Using

machine-learning techniques, the platform facilitates the adjustment of

performance prediction models to close the EPG and as a result, supports adaption

of energy management plans by correcting the parameters in models and controllers

in order to comply with the dynamic building environment [74]. Finally, revealing

a performance gap, the platform assists in defining the potential of the energy

savings and improvement in the occupants’ comfort level, as well as makes

performance faults visible.

Performance-focused business model

TOPAs focuses on continuous performance auditing, which assumes the continuous

flow of energy performance information (including building users behavior)

provided by facility managers, building owners and occupants. Acquiring and

analyzing this information, energy service providers can enhance their services in

order to optimize energy performance and minimize the EPG. Such process

facilitates a performance-focused business model.


Moreover, TOPAs supports ESCO principles, which initially assumes sticking to

the performance-based contracting. This means that the payments depend on the

provided value to clients, namely the energy savings. Finally, according to the

ESCO model, a service provider and a customer share either performance or

financial risks, which is also a critical aspect in the DIGIBUILD proposal.

60

Chapter 6. Discussion

This chapter revises the findings of chapters 3-5 and presents the results according

to research questions. In addition, the chapter discusses the limitations of research.

6.1. Main findings

6.1.1. RQ 1. How and why revealing a gap between the potential and

the actual performances will affect the overall improvement of

lifecycle value of buildings-in-use?

Sustainable development is a main facilitator of cumulative improvement of

buildings lifecycle. Currently, sustainable development is not widespread in the

construction industry. The reason is low demand from customers, who avoid

purchasing innovative and unexperienced solutions because of unclear benefits and

risks. Thereby, solution developers (including designers and engineers) are not

interested in sustainable solutions and as a result, create products and services that

are price-oriented and explicitly expressed by customers. However, customers often

do not understand what they really need, or which solutions available on the market

would improve the overall building performance in the most effective way.

Performance gap revealing encourages sustainable development by introducing a

performance-focused business model. Performance-focused business model

assumes value-based development, that is, promotion of the best value added

solutions. A performance-based approach assumes value co-creation, which

requires close cooperation between developers and customers. In the proposed

approach, the customers are suppliers of the information about the actual asset

performance. Integrating this information with a predicted model, solution

providers can make an effective value proposition supplemented with lifecycle

analyses like LCC and LCA. Therefore, a customer gains the understanding on how

the proposed solution achieves a sustainable building target and closes the building-

related gap, as well as what are the associated costs, risks, and benefits in a long

term.

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION 61

The performance-based approach stimulates development of more expensive, but

more reliable and higher quality products and services, because the procurement is

based on performance, rather than price. The gap revealing process facilitates

continuous performance auditing, which represents a useful tool to verify

performance outcome and created value. Furthermore, it assumes considering

various aspects of building performance, thus providing a critical holistic view on

performance improvement.

6.1.2. RQ 2. What tasks should be performed to reveal the building

performance gap?

Chapter 5, namely a ‘DIGIBUILD project’ section, presents the process of gap

revealing, and Chapter 3 and 4 discuss each task related to the process in more

details, including its benefits, obstacles, attendant goals and practices. Summarizing

analyzed information, the following tasks can be defined:

1) Performance monitoring facilitates provision of information on the actual asset

performance. This can be done by means of the Internet of Things. In order to

monitor the performance of buildings, special sensors and other smart objects

should be firstly embedded into the assets. The sensors support automatic data

collection and processing. Moreover, because data gathered from the smart objects

is heterogeneous, this requires establishing a standardized communication protocol,

thus enabling interoperability of the objects.

2) Performance modeling is responsible for defining the intended performance

level, conducting risk analysis, LCC/LCA calculations, adjustment of lifecycle

operation and maintenance plans. This assures meeting the performance

requirements determined by a customer and building regulation (e.g., comfort,

safety, economy, environmental impact). The task requires development of analytic

and simulation tools, as well as integration of all related data in a common platform.

3) Performance evaluation relates to measurement of performance aspects, which


leads to performance gap definition. This task involves determination of

performance indicators and their interaction between each other. It is also critical

to identify reference targets of the indicators to enable gap revealing and support

exploration of improvement opportunities.

4) Exploration of improvement opportunities (benchmarking) assumes continuous

performance improvement by comparing performances and identifying the best

value added solutions. It encourages the compliance with the best practices

available on the market, thus promoting sustainable development. However, in

order to enable comparison of performances and benchmarking against other

building products and services, performance indicators should be presented in a

standardized form. Furthermore, it is essential to assure a functional equivalence of

the compared solutions.

5) Solution proposal requires movement towards value-based development and

sales.

The thesis mainly focuses on functional characteristics and tasks. However,

technical aspects should be also taken into account. Since the DIGIBUILD

approach assumes comparison of the actual and the intended performances, that is,

integration of performance monitoring and performance modeling, this makes data

integration being a critical task. Moreover, it is essential to ensure dynamic and

efficient data storage and retrieval. Finally, it is required to organize and provide

simple but powerful communication and networking capabilities enabling

information exchange and sharing across building stakeholders.

6.1.3. RQ 3. Where performance gap identification has been already

implemented in practice?

The thesis analyzes three EU projects (i.e., PERFECTION, LinkedDesign, and

TOPAs), which contribute to the problem of performance gap revealing from

different prospects.

PERFECTION is rather old project, which was conducted in a period of 2009-2011.


The project focuses on development and implementation of a performance

assessment framework, which enables evaluation of buildings performance and

potential solutions in a structured way. Performance evaluation is an important step

required to identify a performance gap. Performance gap identification is a process

of comparing the intended performance with the actual one. The reliable

comparison is impossible without creating a standardized framework of

performance indicators. PERFECTION provides a comprehensive study on

performance indicators for evaluation of indoor environmental quality, as well as

defines assessment methods for each performance indicator.

Furthermore, the actual performance of buildings is presented in a form of assessing

performance indicators by a letter (A is the highest performance level and E is the

lowest one, respectively). The intended performance in this project relates to the

target value of KPIs, that is, ‘A class’. Thereby, such approach to gap revealing is

rather static. It shows whether the considered performance indicator is low, but it

does not explain why (i.e., what problems exist and what are their causes).

Generally, gap revealing facilitates exploration of improvement opportunities. In

the PERFECTION project, this process is manual. Solution providers can specify

from 1-3 of performance indicators, which their solutions focus on and can enhance.

Thereupon, providers should request information on buildings, where the specified

indicators are low. Hence, the proposed approach supports value-based

development, which is a critical prerequisite of sustainable development.

Comparing with the PERFECTION project, TOPAs focuses on automatic

exploration and exploitation of performance improvement opportunities. Gap

revealing, in this case, is a continuous process and concerns comparison of the

actual energy consumption with the predicted one. The result of comparison is the

automated adjustment of model parameters and controllers, thus increasing energy

savings. TOPAs supports an ESCO business model, which is performance-oriented.

According to ESCO principles, the energy savings is the basis for service providers’

reward. Therefore, TOPAs facilitates value-based development, that is, provision


of services that minimize an energy performance gap, and thereby, increase the

providers reward.

TOPAs aims to develop models, methodologies and tools, which enable analysis of

performance information and support a decision-making process. This can be an

interest for DIGIBUILD project. However, the TOPAs project has been just started,

and there is not public information on development and implementation yet.

Finally, LinkedDesign can contribute to the DIGIBUILD proposal by providing

information on technical and functional aspects of data collection and processing.

Because gap revealing initially relates to capturing an enormous amount of

heterogeneous data from different data sources (e.g., various sensors and measures),

LinkedDesign is an important project to analyze. The project investigates a set of

methodologies and technologies applied in data integration and shows their

application in several case scenarios. Although the project focuses on product

design and manufacturing, its concepts and ideas can be deployed in the building

industry as well.

6.1.4. RQ 4. What are key factors that make the process of revealing

the performance gap challenging?

Performance gap revealing relates to value co-creation, that is, requires acquisition

of information from customers. However, customers often do not want to make

information on assets public. Several papers as well as two analyzed projects define

information sharing as a considerable challenge that can be a barrier towards value-

based development. Stakeholders can avoid information sharing because of lack of

trust, or if performance information presents any competitive significance for an

asset owner. Furthermore, value co-creation raises interdependence between

stakeholders, which most companies prefer to avoid.

The process of performance gap revealing, proposed in the thesis, is innovative. As

any innovation, it is unclear and requires changes in organizations thinking (i.e., a

shift from transactional to strategic thinking). Since customers usually feel


skeptically about innovative solutions, there is high need for promotion activities

to enhance the market demand. However, the construction sector is known as

having weak marketing and promoting strategies.

In addition to changes in a way of thinking, innovative technology or methodology

require time to understand the proposed concepts, as well as advanced skills and

competence from the building stakeholders. Moreover, performance gap revealing

assumes application of specific information systems and technology, which leads

to additional expenditures.

In order to monitor, model and compare performances, there is need to define

performance indicators. However, it is rather challenging to calculate the optimal

number of performance indicators. It is impossible to take into account all aspects

of building performance that can be monitored or measured, but a number of KPIs

should be sufficient to develop solutions that close the specific gap and improve (at

least, do not affect negatively) the overall performance.

Finally, in countries with the rapidly changing legislation, it is difficult to stick to

long-term contracts. However, performance gap revealing requires a shift from a

project-based to performance-oriented business model, which implies long-term

cooperation between stakeholders.

6.2. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First of all, the empirical findings are based only

on public sources, that is, projects’ websites and the deliverable documents. This

approach provides restrictions on analyzed information, because it does not allow

obtaining additional explanations on concepts or research details, as can be done,

for example, in interviews, where there is a dialogue between a researcher and an

interviewee. Furthermore, collected information enables only qualitative analysis,

which is less reliable than a quantitative one.

Moreover, rather limited information was found on implementation results, that is,


successful and failed implications of the projects. Therefore, it is difficult to verify

whether the project proposal brings the expected benefits to stakeholders in

practice. This discourages the validity of this research.

Finally, one of the projects has been recently started, which leads to lack of

information and details on project’s tasks and deliverables. Thereby, this is hard to

evaluate its potential implications for the DIGIBUILD approach.

67

Chapter 7. Conclusions

Sustainability refers to improvement of one or several aspects of the societal

prosperity, from health and well-being of residents to environment and resource

efficiency; and it has become a critical issue in European vision and development

strategy. Performance is an important measure that defines how well sustainability

goals have been achieved. Hence, it led to the movement from a prescriptive to

performance-based approach, which assumes a shift from price-oriented to value-

based development.

The building industry is a sector, where a price has been a major criterion in

selection of contractors for a long time, thus promoting development of the cheapest

solutions, which usually are not productive in a long-term perspective. This has

resulted in cumulative recession of buildings lifecycle value, and thus declining the

building ecosystem and the societal prosperity in general.

The solution is to focus on value-based development, that is, stimulate

implementation of products and services that bring the best value added to a facility,

taking into account the overall performance improvement as well as long-term costs

and benefits. Performance gap revealing enables value-based development by

making building problematic areas visible, thereby encouraging to design such

solutions that close the specific performance gaps.

The thesis investigates the research problem from two prospects – reviewing the

existing literature and analyzing the related EU projects.

The study presents a framework that describes the phases required to leverage

value-based development. The framework is based on the concepts proposed by the

DIGIBUILD project, which focuses on improvement of buildings lifecycle value

by digitalizing a performance-focused business model.

Generally, the concepts of a performance-based approach (including procurement,

contracting, regulations, design and maintenance) are thoroughly presented in the

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS 68

literature. This enables to invent the initial understanding on the main drivers

towards value-based development. Furthermore, performance gap revealing

requires implementation of digital solutions to enable data collection, integration,

processing, and decision-making. Therefore, the thesis also analyzes modern

technologies and methodologies that facilitate performance gap revealing tasks

(i.e., monitoring, modeling, assessment, benchmarking).

Finally, the study evaluates three existing projects, which consider different aspects

of the performance gap revealing process, and thus enhancing understanding on the

research problem. However, this thesis does not concern technical aspects (e.g.,

implementation requirements or architecture), which can represent a focus for

future research.

69

Bibliography

[1] L. Aarikka-Strenroos and E. Jaakkola (2012). ”Value co-creation in knowledge

intensive business services: a dyadic perspective on the joint problem solving

process”. Industrial Marketing Management, 41: pp. 15–26.

[2] T.Ahren and A. Parida (2009). “Maintenance performance indicators (MPIs) for

benchmarking the railway infrastructure”. Benchmarking: An International

Journal, 16(2): pp. 247–258.

[3] K. Akkaya, I. Guvenc, R. Aygun, N. Pala, and A. Kadri (2015). “IoT-based

occupancy monitoring techniques for energy-efficient smart buildings”. IEEE

Wireless Communications and Networking Conference – Workshop – Energy

Efficiency in the Internet of Things, and Internet of Things for Energy Efficiency,

IEEE: pp. 58–63.

[4] H. Alwaer and D.J. Clements-Croome (2010). “Key performance indicators

(KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing

sustainable intelligent buildings”. Building and Environment, 45: pp. 799–807.

[5] T. Asrofah, S. Zailani, and Y. Fernando (2010). “Best practices for the

effectiveness of benchmarking in the Indonesian manufacturing companies”.

Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17(1): pp. 115–143.

[6] N. Banaitiene and A. Banaitis (2006). “Analysis of criteria for contractor’s

qualification evaluation”. Ukio Technologinis in Ekonomonis Vystymas, 12(4): pp.

276–282.

[7] R. Becker (1999). “Research and development needs for better implementation

of the performance concept in building”. Automation in Construction, 8: pp. 525–

532.

[8] G. Bettinazzi, A.A. Nacci, and D. Sciuto (2015). “Methods and algorithms for

the interaction of residential smart buildings with smart grids”. IEEE 13th

International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, IEEE

Computer Society: pp. 178–182.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 70

[9] E. Carrillo, V. Benitez, C. Mendoza, and J. Pacheco (2015). “IoT framework

for smart buildings with cloud computing”. IEEE.

[10] D. Cerri, M. Cocco, S. Terzi, M. Rossi, A. Buda, K. Framling, K. Pardalis, D.

Alexandrou, P. Ivanov, and A. Mocan (2014). ”D4.3 Revised knowledge

exploitation framework”. Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing, Engineering and

Design for Next-Generation Production. LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf]

Available at:

<http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M30/LinkedDesign_Deliverable_4.3.pd

f>

[11] R. F. Cox, R.R.A. Issa, D. Ahrens (2003). ”Management’s perception of key

performance indicators for construction”. Journal of Construction Engineering and

Management, 129(2): pp. 142–151.

[12] P. Bertoldi, B. Boza-Kiss, S. Panev, and N. Labanca (2014). “The European

ESCO market report 2013”. JRC Science and Policy Reports, European

Commission, Joint Research Center. [pdf] Available at:

<http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/jrc_89550

_the_european_esco_market_report_2013_online.pdf>

[13] D.J., Bryde and R. Joby (2007). “Incentivising project performance in the

construction of new facilities”. Journal of Facilities Management, 5(2): pp. 143–

149.

[14] D. Denyer, D. Tranfield, and Joan Ernst van Aken (2008). “Developing

design propositions through research systematic synthesis”. Organization Studies,

29(03):393–413.

[15] J. Desmyter, P-H. Lefebvre, P. Huovila, N. Sakkas, and S. Garvin.

“Performance indicators for health, comfort, safety of the indoor environment –

main achievements of the European PERFECTION coordination action”. [Pdf]

Available at: < http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23312.pdf>

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M30/LinkedDesign_Deliverable_4.3.pdf


http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/jrc_89550_the_european_esco_market_report_2013_online.pdf

http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/jrc_89550_the_european_esco_market_report_2013_online.pdf

http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23312.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 71

[16] J. Duncan (2005). “Performance-based building: lessons from implementation

in New Zealand”. Building Research & Information, 33(2): pp. 120–127.

[17] “EeB-07-2015: New tools and methodologies to reduce the gap between

predicted and actual building energy performance”. Research & Innovation,

Participant Portal, European Commission, 2016. Available at:

<https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/t

opics/413-eeb-07-2015.html>

[18] Energy Service Companies. Joint Research Center, Institute for Energy

and Transportation, European Commission, 2016. Available at:

<http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/esco>

[19] G.C. Foliente (2000). “Developments in performance-based building codes

and standards”. Forest Products Journal, 50(7/8): pp. 12–21.

[20] J. Furman, A. Kowalska, S. Botsi, and A. Sofantzis (2010). “D 2.1 A

framework for user engagement”. PERFECTION – Perfection Indicators for

Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment. PERFECTION. Available

at: <http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Perfection_D21_final.pdf >

[21] D. Hammond, J. Dempsey, F. Szigeti, and G. Davis (2005). “Integrating a

performance-based approach: a case study”. Building Research & Information,

33(2): pp. 128–141.

[22] C. Gerrish and N. Hondgson (1998). “Performance based contracting, the

problems facing operators and suppliers”. International Conference on

Developments in Mass Transit Systems, 20-23 April, 1993, Conference

Publication, IEEE, 543: pp. 217–221.

[23] R. Gupta (2014). “EeB-07-2015: New tools and methodologies to reduce the

gap between predicted and actual building energy performance”. EeB Brokerage

Event, Brussels, 21st October 2014, Info Day on Research & Innovation PPPs.

[Pdf] Available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/413-eeb-07-2015.html


http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/esco

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Perfection_D21_final.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 72

<http://www.abmerkezi-arastirma.itu.edu.tr/docs/librariesprovider81/Ortak-

Arama/enerji/07-eeb07-oxford-brookes-university.pdf?sfvrsn=2>

[24] W.N. Hien, L.K. Poh, and H. Feriadi (2000). “The use of performance-based

simulation tools for building design and evaluation – a Singapore perspective”.

Building and Environment, 35: pp. 709–736.

[25] J. Holmström, M. Ketokivi, and A.P. Hameri (2009). “Bridging Practice and

theory: a design science approach”. Decisions Science, 40(1): pp. 65–87.

[26] J. Holmström, K. Främling, R. Rajala, A. Peltokorpi, and V. Singh (2015).

“Improving the life-cycle value of buildings: Digitalization of performance-focused

business (AKATEMIA-DIGIBUILD)”. Research proposal. Aalto University

School of Science, Aalto University School of Engineering, Helsingin Yliopiston

Tilapalvelut, TA-Yhtymät, Granlund, FIRA, 16th of September 2015

[27] G.D. Holt, P.O. Olomolaiye, and F.C. Harris (1995). “A review of constructor

selection practice in the U.K. construction industry”. Building and Environment,

30(4): pp. 553–561.

[28] “Horizon 2020. Work programme 2014-2015”. HORIZON 2020, The EU

Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, 2014. Available at:

<http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h20

20-wp1415-intro_en.pdf>

[29] Y.C. Huang, K.P. Lam and G. Dobbs (2008). “A scalable lighting simulation

tool for integrated building design”. Third National Conference of IBPSA-USA,

Berkeley, California, July 30-August 1, 2008 SimBuild, 206-213. [Pdf] Available

at:

<https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Khee_Lam/publication/255610621_A_SC

ALABLE_LIGHTING_SIMULATION_TOOL_FOR_INTEGRATED_BUILDIN

G_DESIGN/links/0046353be2fa1361d6000000.pdf>

[30] A. Huovila, J. Porkka, P. Huovila, P. Steskens, M. Loomans, S. Botsi, and N.

Sakkas (2010). ”D1.5 A generic framework for key performance indicators”.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-intro_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2014_2015/main/h2020-wp1415-intro_en.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Khee_Lam/publication/255610621_A_SCALABLE_LIGHTING_SIMULATION_TOOL_FOR_INTEGRATED_BUILDING_DESIGN/links/0046353be2fa1361d6000000.pdf



BIBLIOGRAPHY 73

PERFECTION – Perfection Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor

Environment. PERFECTION. Available at: <http://www.ca-

perfection.eu/media/files/Perfection_D15_final.pdf >

[31] T. Häkkinen (2012). “Sustainability and performance assessment and

benchmarking of building – final report”. VTT Technology 72: 409 p. + app. 49 p.

[32] T. Häkkinen and K. Belloni (2011). “Barriers and drivers to sustainable

buildings”. Building Research & Information, 39(3): pp. 239–255.

[33] M. Jokela, T. Laine, R. Hänninen (2012). ”Series 12. Use of models in facility

management”. COBIM – Common BIM Requirements 2012.

[34] K. Jones, and .M. Sharp (2007). “A new performance-based process model for

built asset maintenance”. Facilities, 25(13/14): pp. 525–535.

[35] S-S. Kim, I-H. Yang, M-S. Yeo, and K-W. Kim (2005). “Development of a

housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in

Korea”. Building and Environment, 40: pp. 1103–1116.

[36] Y.S. Kim, S.W. Oh, Y.K. Cho, and J.W. Seo (2008). “A PDA and wireless

web-integrated system for quality inspection and defect management of apartment

housing projects”. Automation in Construction, 17: pp. 163–179.

[37] K. Kimoto, K. Endo, S. Iwashita, M. Fujiwara (2005). “The application of PDA

as mobile computing system on construction management”. Automation in

Construction, 14: pp. 500–511.

[38] G. Kortuem, F. Kawsar, D. Fitton, and V. Sundramoorthy (2010). “Smart

objects as building blocks for the Internet of Things”. IEEE Internet computing,

IEEE Computer Society: pp. 44–51.

[39] A Kowalska. “Successful user engagement in the construction sector based

on Perfection project case study”. ASM Market Research and Analysis Centre Ltd.,

Poland. [Pdf] Available at:

< http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23060.pdf>




BIBLIOGRAPHY 74

[40] Y-C. Lin (2015). “Use of BIM approach to enhance construction interface

management: a case study”. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 21(2):

pp. 201–217.

[41] LinkedDesign. LinkedDesign, 2015. Available at:

<http://www.linkeddesign.eu>

[42] M. Loomans, A. Huovila, P-H. Lefebvre, J. Porkka, P. Huovila, J.

Desmyter, and A. Vaturi (2011). “Key performance indicators for the indoor

environment”. [Pdf] Available at:

< http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC23314.pdf>

[43] E. Louw, P. Ivanov, E. Peukert, K. Fraemling, K. Kristensen, S. El Kadiri, A.

Milicic, J. Cassina, D. Potter, A. Gjarde, C. Wartner, P. Klein, and J. Lutzenberger

(2012). ”D1.1 Data management and integration components in the LinkedDesign

architecture”. Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing, Engineering and Design for

Next-Generation Production. LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf] Available at: <

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/LinkedDesign_D1.1.pdf >

[44] A. Lupisek, S. Botsi, P. Hajek, N. Sakkas, and J. Hodkova (2009). ”D 1.1 An

inventory of relevant standards, regulations technologies”. PERFECTION –

Perfection Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment.

PERFECTION. Available at:

<http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Perfection_D11_final.pdf >

[45] J. Lutzenberger, I. Marthinusen, K. Kristensen, P. Klein, O.I. Sivertsen, and G.

Rutkowska (2012). ”D6.1 Methods for KBE related knowledge acquisition and

codification”. Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing, Engineering and Design for


http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/D6.1KnowledgeAquisitionandCodifi

cat%201.pdf >

[46] C.S. Martins (2014). “Energy-efficient buildings (EeB)”. DG Research and

Innovation, Lisboa, 19th of September 2014. Available at:

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/


http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/LinkedDesign_D1.1.pdf


http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/D6.1KnowledgeAquisitionandCodificat%201.pdf

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/D6.1KnowledgeAquisitionandCodificat%201.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 75

<http://www.gppq.fct.pt/h2020/_docs/eventos/2485_4__edificios_energeticament

e_eficientes.pdf>

[47] J.F. Martins, J.A. Oliveira-Lima, V. Delgado-Gomes, R. Lopes, D. Silva, S.

Vieira, and C. Lima (2012). “Smart homes and smart buildings”. 13th Biennial

Baltic Electronics Conference, Tallinn, Estonia, October 3-5, 2012, IEEE: pp. 27 –

38.

[48] B. Meacham, R. Bowen, J. Traw, and A. Moore (2005). “Performance-based

building regulation: current situation and future needs”. Building Research &

Information, 33(2): pp. 91–106.

[49] D. Miorandi, S. Sicari, F. de Pellegrini, I. Chlamtac (2012). “Internet of

Things: vision, applications and research challenges”. Ad Hoc Networks, 10: pp.

1497–1516.

[50] I.C.L. Ng, R. Maull, and N. Yip (2009). “Outcome-based contracts as a driver

for systems thinking and service-dominant logic in service science: evidence from

the defense industry”. European Management Journal, 27: pp. 377–387.

[51] K. Pardalis and S. El Kadiri (2014). ”D3.3 The LinkedDesign ontology”.

Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing, Engineering and Design for Next-Generation

Production. LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf] Available at: <


>

[52] S. Parrotta (2014). ”D10.9 LinkedDesign demonstrators”. Linked Knowledge

in Manufacturing, Engineering and Design for Next-Generation Production.

LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf] Available at: <

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M36/M36_LinkedDesign_Deliverable_1

0.9.pdf>

[53] S. Parrotta, J. Clobes, F. Perales, G. Iversen, C. Wartner, A. Milicic, S. El

Kadiri, S. Rcca, A. Buda, E. Peukert, J. Lutzenberger, and K. Kristensen (2014).

”D10.8 The LinkedDesign architecture – second update”. Linked Knowledge in

http://www.gppq.fct.pt/h2020/_docs/eventos/2485_4__edificios_energeticamente_eficientes.pdf

http://www.gppq.fct.pt/h2020/_docs/eventos/2485_4__edificios_energeticamente_eficientes.pdf


http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M36/M36_LinkedDesign_Deliverable_10.9.pdf

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M36/M36_LinkedDesign_Deliverable_10.9.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 76

Manufacturing, Engineering and Design for Next-Generation Production.

LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf] Available at: <

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M30/LinkedDesign_Deliverable_10.8.pd

f >

[54] R. Pawson and N. Tilley (2004). “Realist evaluation”. [Pdf] Available at:

<http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf>

[55] A. Pelzeter (2007). “Building optimization with life cycle costs – the influence

of calculation methods”. Journal of Facilities Management, 5(2): pp. 115–128.

[56] PERFECTION – Perfection Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of

the Indoor Environment. PERFECTION. Available at: <http://www.ca-

perfection.eu/index.cfm?n01=general_info>

[57] PERFECTION – Perfection Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the

Indoor Environment (2010). Newsletter, 1(1). Available at: <http://www.ca-

perfection.eu/media/files/Newsletter1.pdf >

[58] PERFECTION – Perfection Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the

Indoor Environment (2011). Newsletter, 2(1). Available at: <http://www.ca-

perfection.eu/media/files/Newsletter2_v6.pd>

[59] J. Porkka, A. Huovila, P. Huovila, and F. Stirano (2010). “Tool for

assessing indoor performance – case study examples from Perfection project”.

[Pdf] Available at: <http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB21168.pdf >

[60] D. Puglieze and G. Colombo (2014). ”D6.3 “Rule Interchange Format”

standardization document”. Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing, Engineering and

Design for Next-Generation Production. LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf]

Available at:

<http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M30/LinkedDesign_Deliverable_6.3.pd

f>

[61] G. Reichard and K. Papamichael (2005). “Decision-making through

performance simulation and code compliance from the early schematic phases of



http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/index.cfm?n01=general_info

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/index.cfm?n01=general_info

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Newsletter1.pdf

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Newsletter1.pdf

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Newsletter2_v6.pd

http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Newsletter2_v6.pd

http://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB21168.pdf



BIBLIOGRAPHY 77

building design”. Automation in Construction, 14: pp. 173–180.

[62] R. Ries and A. Mahdavi (2001). “Integrated computational life-cycle

assessment of buildings”. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 15(1): pp.

59–66.

[63] S. Sadocco and S. Temperini (2012). ”D8.1 Guideline for LinkedDesign deployment

and integration into Comau design environment”. Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing,

Engineering and Design for Next-Generation Production. LinkedDesign Consortium. [pdf]

Available at: < http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/LinkedDesign_D8.1_v4.pdf

>

[64] M. Sexton and P. Barrett (2005). “Performance-based building and innovation:

balancing client and industry needs”. Building Research & Information, 33(2): pp.

142–148.

[65] D. Sciuto A.A. Nacci (2014). “On how to design smart energy-efficient

buildings”. International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing,

IEEE Computer Society: pp. 205–208.

[66] F. Stirano, R. Sabbatelli, J. Porkka, A. Huovila, N. Sakkas, and M. Niktari

(2010). “Indicator toolbox”. PERFECTION – Perfection Indicators for Health,

Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment. PERFECTION. Available at:

<http://www.ca-perfection.eu/media/files/Perfection_D22_final.pdf >

[67] J.M. Simoes, C.F. Gomes, and M.M. Yasin (2011). “A literature review of

maintenance performance measurement”. Journal of Quality in Maintenance

Engineering, 17(2): pp. 116–137.

[68] P. Streskens, and M. Loomans (2010). “Performance indicators for health,

comfort and safety of the indoor environment”. 10th REHVA World Congress [pdf]

Available at:

<http://sts.bwk.tue.nl/Loomans/homeML_publication_files/2010%20Clima2010

%20Perfection.pdf >

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/LinkedDesign_D8.1_v4.pdf


http://sts.bwk.tue.nl/Loomans/homeML_publication_files/2010%20Clima2010%20Perfection.pdf

http://sts.bwk.tue.nl/Loomans/homeML_publication_files/2010%20Clima2010%20Perfection.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 78

[69] U. Y. Sullivan, R.M. Peterson, and V. Krishnan (2012). “Value creation and

firm sales performance: the mediating roles of strategic account management and

relationship perception”. Industrial Marketing Management, 41: pp. 166–173.

[70] H. Terho, A. Haas, A. Eggert, and W. Ulaga (2012). “’It’s almost like taking

the sales out of selling’ – towards a conceptualization of value-based selling in

business markets”. Industrial Marketing Management, 41: pp. 174–185.

[71] “Tools for cOntinuous building Performance Auditing”. CORDIS, Community

Research and Development Information Service, 2015. Available at:

<http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/198342_en.html>

[72] “Tools for continuous building performance auditing”. TOPAs, 2016. [Pdf]

Available at: < https://www.topas-eeb.eu/doucuments/dissemination-materials>

[73] “TOPAs European Consortium to end power hungry buildings”. Press

release, TOPAs, 2015. [Pdf] Available at: <https://www.topas-eeb.eu/news-

events/14-news-02 >

[74] TOPAs Tools for Continuous Building Performance Auditing. TOPAs, 2016.

Available at: <https://www.topas-eeb.eu/l>

[75] J. van Duren, A. Doree, and H. Voordijk (2015). “Perceptions of success in

performance-based procurement”. Construction Innovation, 15(1): pp. 107–128.

[76] G-J. Wang, C-J. Wang, and X. Zhang. “Performance analysis and design

platform based on Building Information Model”. Nottingham University Press.

[Pdf] Available at:

<http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/icccbe/proceedings/pdf/pf170.pdf>

[77] X.Wang and H-Y. Chong (2015). “Setting new trends of integrated Building

Information Modeling (BM) for construction industry”. Construction Innovation,

15(1): pp. 2–6.

[78] R. El-Wardani (2012). “Developing a reference-model for benchmarking:

performance improvement in operation and maintenance”. Master’s Thesis,

http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/198342_en.html

https://www.topas-eeb.eu/doucuments/dissemination-materials

https://www.topas-eeb.eu/news-events/14-news-02

https://www.topas-eeb.eu/news-events/14-news-02


http://www.engineering.nottingham.ac.uk/icccbe/proceedings/pdf/pf170.pdf

BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Stavanger: 83 p [pdf]. Available

at:

<http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/183000/El-

Wardani%2c%20Riad.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y>

[79] C. Wartner, P. Arnold, E. Peukert, and S. de la Maza (2012). ”D2.1 Matching

framework & data protocols for data integration in design, engineering and

manufacturing”. Linked Knowledge in Manufacturing, Engineering and Design for


http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/D2.1-MatchingFramework.pdf >

[80] T. Weng, and Y. Agarwal (2012). “From buildings to smart buildings –

sensing, and actuation to improve energy efficiency”. IEEE Design & Test of

Computers, IEEE: pp. 36–44.

[81] Z. Zhou, X. Zhao, and P.H.J. Chong (2013). “Optimal relay node placement in

wireless sensor network for smart buildings metering and control”. Proceedings of

ICCT, IEEE: pp. 456–461.

[82] Q. Zhu, R. Wang, Q. Chen, Y. Liu, and W. Qin (2010). “IoT gateway: bridging

wireless sensor networks into Internet of Things”. IEEE/IFIP International

Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing, IEEE Computer Society: pp.

347–352.

http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/183000/El-Wardani%2c%20Riad.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://brage.bibsys.no/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/183000/El-Wardani%2c%20Riad.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

http://www.linkeddesign.eu/deliverables/M9/D2.1-MatchingFramework.pdf

80

Appendix A. Performance indicators framework

Figure A.1. KIPI framework (Source: [17]) 1

81

Appendix B. Example of indicators weighting

Figure B.1. Indicators weighting (Source: http://cic.vtt.fi/kipi/showcase.php?project_id=153 ) 1

Documents

Enabling Cumulative Improvement of Buildings- in-Use by